I've been forced to disable comments for older posts because there has been a spammer or spambot sitting on the site submitting garbage comments about every 10 minutes since Friday.
I'd prefer to not make you answer CAPTCHAs in order to post comments, but parasites like spammers ruin everything that isn't locked down.
For now, older comments will be disabled (comments on current posts are still available though).
Former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin tells NPR, "We may have made a few terrorists uncomfortable for a short period of time in order to get information that we felt was essential to protecting the United States."
By which he means:
In November 2002, a detainee died from hypothermia after he was held "partially nude and chained to a concrete floor."
Some detainees were kept awake for up to 180 hours, "usually standing or in painful stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads."
Some naked detainees were "hooded and dragged up and down corridors while being slapped and punched."
"At least five CIA detainees were subjected to 'rectal feeding' or 'rectal hydration' without documented medical need."
Detainees were kept in total darkness and shackled in isolated cells, bombarded with loud noise and given only a bucket in which to relieve themselves.
The CIA may have waterboarded more than the three detainees it said it waterboarded.
...chained to the ceiling, clothed in a diaper, and forced to go to the bathroom on himself.
Multiple CIA detainees subjected to the techniques suffered from hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia and tried to mutilate themselves.
...became completely unresponsive after a period of intense waterboarding.
At least 26 were held "wrongfully," partly because there was no information to justify their detention.
The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting.
Detainees were often held down, naked, on a tarp on the floor, with the tarp pulled up around them to form a makeshift tub, while cold or refrigerated water was poured on them.
Others were hosed down repeatedly while they were shackled naked, in the standing sleep deprivation position.
...the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take "precedence" over his medical care.
CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families—to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee's] mother's throat."
Quotes from NPR, CNN, and SF Chronicle articles; and from the document itself.
And it goes on and on and on and on....
Is this what you consider acceptable treatment of prisoners? Would we ever accept this if done to U.S. military personnel? Is this simply making them uncomfortable? How could anyone read those descriptions and say all we did was, "made a few terrorists uncomfortable."?
Having just finished my graduate course on terrorism the release of the summary of the report regarding the CIA's interrogation activities is particularly interesting to me. [NPR coverage here.]
A lot of words have been written about whether the treatment of prisoners was "technically torture." First, I think it should be seen as a clear sign that you're doing something wrong when you have to spend that much energy arguing over whether something is technically torture or not. If the best you can do to defend your actions is to say "it wasn't 'technically' torture, so it was okay" then you're doing something wrong.
Second, instead of spending pages and pages (as the Department of Justice did) analyzing the legal definition of torture and whether you've violated it; let's use a much easier route. Sample the population and describe the actions as having been committed against U.S. civilians captured by, let's say, North Korea. If we consider it torture for North Korea to do that to our citizens then it's torture for us to do it to anybody else.
The argument then usually falls back to, "well, so what if it was torture, we needed the intel it resulted in." Despite this being a highly disputed claim (especially within the new report) it's irrelevant. Torture is wrong. Efficacy does not matter. Why? Why is torture wrong? The simplest argument is that it's wrong for the same reason that capital punishment is wrong. At some point you're going to do it to someone who is completely innocent and there's no taking it back. But it's wrong beyond that. It'd be wrong even if you absolutely knew without any doubt whatsoever that the victim was guilty. Despite the copious quantities of evidence that torture probably doesn't work, results in backlash, alienates allies, and radicalizes enemies we need no data points here. This is moral conviction. Treating another conscious, living thing that way is wrong.
The only thing I find more disgusting than the fact that these actions were carried out in our names is that no one will be held accountable for it. No one has been or ever will be charged with violating human rights or international conventions. They did these disgusting things and told the world they did it for us. Your name, my name, my daughter's name, our flag, our country have been slapped on the use of torture claiming "We Approve!"
I do not approve.
It was wrong.
We as a country need to change. We need to apologize to the victims and their families. Yes, even though the prisoners most likely were awful people, what we did was unacceptable. The idea that the victim was a bad person does not excuse mistreating them. We need to do something to ensure it doesn't happen again. We need to show why the United States is better than a terrorist organization, not stoop to their level. If we're going to claim to stand for freedom and justice then we need to actually practice what we preach.
We need to be better.
This report from Statista has been making the rounds telling everyone how Honda Accords and Civics are magnets for theft.
Now it is important to remember our discussion about Bayesian statistics and why the headline of the article and chart, "Honda Owners Are Most At Risk From Car Theft," is simply wrong. This data makes no attempt to account for the number of these vehicles in use when considering how likely a vehicle is to be stolen. What this data really says is, "Of cars that have been stolen, we counted more Honda Accords and Civics than other vehicles." Which is slightly different and explicitly says nothing about how likely Accords and Civics are to get stolen. Claiming that, from this data, Accords and Civics are most likely to be stolen is disingenuous at best. You must include the "prior" that accounts for the number of Accords and Civics that exist in the first place in order to say anything reasonable about the likelihood of Accords and Civics getting stolen.
If you don't at least know about Bayesian statistics you'll be misled by people who, either intentionally or not, report misleading data. And I guarantee this report is being used today to sell additional insurance coverage to someone sitting in a Honda dealer buying a car (the same way they tried to do so to me in 2007).
I was casually reading this Consumerist story and the use of the word "homeland" was kind of disturbing. Even after more than 10 years, "homeland" still has a disturbing, big-brothery, propaganda-y, dystopian-ness to it. Maybe "even after" is the wrong phrase, maybe it is exactly due to how it has been used over the last decade that gives it the same, if not more of an, overtone of unpleasantness, of wrongness, even sinisterness.
The usage was a quote from some unnamed "senior U.S. official" in this form:
While we are not aware of a specific threat to the homeland at this time, this routine communication is an important part of our commitment to making sure we meet that priority...
I just can't read that sentence without "homeland" pricking me deep in my psyche and bothering me deeply.
The whole thing bothers me. Someone "official" telling everyone that they should be afraid not for any particular reason ("not aware of a specific threat"), but just because they want you to remember you're supposed to be afraid or something.
I dislike what we did to our country after September 11, 2001. Terrorists killed a few thousand people; tragic--but an absolute pittance compared to car accidents (33,000 per year), heart disease (600,000 per year), and suicide (38,000 per year). Terrorists killed a few thousand people in 2001, but we've been terrorizing ourselves for over 12 years. We pushed an agenda of fear and allowed that agenda to either erode or destroy founding ideals of liberty and freedom.
I'm hoping we can begin to change that; but quotes like this one seem to have no purpose other than to continue pushing an agenda of fear-mongering.
I'm hoping we can begin to change that because of articles like this one from Ars Technica discussing that one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act is trying to undo some of the damage he's done and reign in some of these activities (not that he admits this is his fault in any way, of course). It is just really sad that these people were not listening 10 years ago when others were warning how dangerous these laws would be.