5 ms·

As additional info: The same is going on in some of the CIA's secret prisons, according to whistleblowers and images. And many other kinds of torture. Also st

As additional info: The same is going on in some of the CIA's secret prisons, according to whistleblowers and images. And many other kinds of torture. Also stuff going on in Saudi Arabia. Of course the CIA used "national security" to forbid any publicity on it. But you can find it on wikileaks or similar uncensored sites. The only way to bring this into the open, is by revoking the "national security" in cases of crimes and war-crimes. I have also seen problems for women (and some men) in the US military. But that is a whole different chapter.

iudqnolq 7y ago
The CIA did a lot of "rectal rehydration" and "rectal feeding", and you can find reports of it in the mainstream media. For example, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-... While you aren't wrong that the Saudi Arabian government tortures prisoners, you're phrasing implies that they are unique when in fact most authoritarian governments around the world torture people in their prisons.
- spats1990 7y ago
  >While you aren't wrong that the Saudi Arabian government tortures prisoners, you're phrasing implies that they are unique when in fact most authoritarian governments around the world torture people in their prisons. Could you expand a bit on the significance of this? This seems like the kind of response that would be met with scorn if Saudi Arabia were substituted for certain other authoritarian governments in this sentence. I've been grappling with it a bit myself, lately. When we are thinking about the human rights violations of a particular government or organization, is it important to consider them in context (similar to your statement, if I'm reading it correctly--i.e. such violations are not unique)? But then such attempts to place things in context are often met with accusations of whataboutism (which is sometimes the case in that "provision of context" is actually "attempt to deflect the conversation"). In other cases I'm not so sure.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    I didn't at all intend to justify or excuse anything the Saudi Arabian government has done. Not uniquely despicable isn't a good look. I did worry that people not familiar with the issues who read the comment I replied to would come away with the impression that for a totalitarian country to torture is unusual. It's completely valid to say "lots of countries torture, and let's focus on Saudi Arabia because they get a lot of US support so we as US citizens have more leverage over them than most countries". It's also completely valid to say "let's focus on Saudia Arabia because they're on the worse end and we need to start somewhere". I wouldn't have left my comment there was a large discussion about Saudi abuses; I thought the comment was useful because it was in reply to a single offhand looking comment.
Iv 7y ago
There is a reason GWB did not want the US to be recognize the International Criminal Court. And why Bill Clinton thought it was important: that was about making sure US remains the good guy despite being (during the 90-2020 period) the only superpower left. Instead, you guys chose the other path.
- GuiA 7y ago
  Saying “you guys” when talking to individual citizens (especially online) regarding actions of their government (especially when they were 3 decades ago) is unnecessarily antagonistic.
  - thundergolfer 7y ago
    No who you’re reply to, but while I can see that it is a little antagonistic are you suggesting that citizens shouldn’t feel responsible for their government? You do realise that the USA is supposed to have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? In my view there isn’t enough responsibility taken by US citizens for their government, certainly stemming from a lack of general citizen engagement in politics in the USA , so it might be actually helpful to remind people that their government is their responsibility.
    - GuiA 7y ago
      Strawman, that is not what I am saying at all. Merely that in space meant to foster constructive conversation - which HN aims to be - ending a comment with "you guys chose to do X" when talking about controversial political decisions goes against the spirit of the space. And if you really believe what you've written, feel free to disclose what government(s) you answer to and what you've personally done to right their wrongs.
      - thundergolfer 7y ago
        Perhaps, I'm not that familiar with the "spirit" of HN, but that comment seemed pretty mild to me. To your last sentence, first, yes I believe what I've written. I am an Australian citizen. I personally don't think I do enough to "right [our] wrongs", but that doesn't stop me believing in the principle of democratic responsibility. I recently have gone to a Climate Change protest, voted, and donated 10% of my salary to helping people who deserve help but aren't getting it from our government. Day-to-day I also avoid participating in activities I believe are wrong but which are made illegal/regulated in my society (eg. eating meat). But again, the above is kinda besides the point. I believe in democratic responsibility so look first to question what I'm able to do rather than blaming some third-party, and wouldn't complain about "you guys chose..." phrasing.

iudqnolq 7y ago

The CIA did a lot of "rectal rehydration" and "rectal feeding", and you can find reports of it in the mainstream media. For example, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-... While you aren't wrong that the Saudi Arabian government tortures prisoners, you're phrasing implies that they are unique when in fact most authoritarian governments around the world torture people in their prisons.

spats1990 7y ago
>While you aren't wrong that the Saudi Arabian government tortures prisoners, you're phrasing implies that they are unique when in fact most authoritarian governments around the world torture people in their prisons. Could you expand a bit on the significance of this? This seems like the kind of response that would be met with scorn if Saudi Arabia were substituted for certain other authoritarian governments in this sentence. I've been grappling with it a bit myself, lately. When we are thinking about the human rights violations of a particular government or organization, is it important to consider them in context (similar to your statement, if I'm reading it correctly--i.e. such violations are not unique)? But then such attempts to place things in context are often met with accusations of whataboutism (which is sometimes the case in that "provision of context" is actually "attempt to deflect the conversation"). In other cases I'm not so sure.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I didn't at all intend to justify or excuse anything the Saudi Arabian government has done. Not uniquely despicable isn't a good look. I did worry that people not familiar with the issues who read the comment I replied to would come away with the impression that for a totalitarian country to torture is unusual. It's completely valid to say "lots of countries torture, and let's focus on Saudi Arabia because they get a lot of US support so we as US citizens have more leverage over them than most countries". It's also completely valid to say "let's focus on Saudia Arabia because they're on the worse end and we need to start somewhere". I wouldn't have left my comment there was a large discussion about Saudi abuses; I thought the comment was useful because it was in reply to a single offhand looking comment.

Iv 7y ago

There is a reason GWB did not want the US to be recognize the International Criminal Court. And why Bill Clinton thought it was important: that was about making sure US remains the good guy despite being (during the 90-2020 period) the only superpower left. Instead, you guys chose the other path.

GuiA 7y ago
Saying “you guys” when talking to individual citizens (especially online) regarding actions of their government (especially when they were 3 decades ago) is unnecessarily antagonistic.
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  No who you’re reply to, but while I can see that it is a little antagonistic are you suggesting that citizens shouldn’t feel responsible for their government? You do realise that the USA is supposed to have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? In my view there isn’t enough responsibility taken by US citizens for their government, certainly stemming from a lack of general citizen engagement in politics in the USA , so it might be actually helpful to remind people that their government is their responsibility.
  - GuiA 7y ago
    Strawman, that is not what I am saying at all. Merely that in space meant to foster constructive conversation - which HN aims to be - ending a comment with "you guys chose to do X" when talking about controversial political decisions goes against the spirit of the space. And if you really believe what you've written, feel free to disclose what government(s) you answer to and what you've personally done to right their wrongs.
    - thundergolfer 7y ago
      Perhaps, I'm not that familiar with the "spirit" of HN, but that comment seemed pretty mild to me. To your last sentence, first, yes I believe what I've written. I am an Australian citizen. I personally don't think I do enough to "right [our] wrongs", but that doesn't stop me believing in the principle of democratic responsibility. I recently have gone to a Climate Change protest, voted, and donated 10% of my salary to helping people who deserve help but aren't getting it from our government. Day-to-day I also avoid participating in activities I believe are wrong but which are made illegal/regulated in my society (eg. eating meat). But again, the above is kinda besides the point. I believe in democratic responsibility so look first to question what I'm able to do rather than blaming some third-party, and wouldn't complain about "you guys chose..." phrasing.