5 ms·

The CIA and a secret vacuum cleaner

77 points by atestu 13y ago

tomgirl1 13y ago
So after we dehumanized a person, they acted like a person. And that "freaked us out" so ... we acted normally. You have to be f* kidding me.
kwamenum86 13y ago
This reads like satire especially toward the end
- arethuza 13y ago
  "confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design, a Swiffer design, or even a design for a better hand towel would apparently expose the U.S. government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger" Is he being serious?
  - speeder 13y ago
    For the US government, yes. The person is being sarcastic that US government really claims that, I saw several articles on the subject already, EVERYTHING in Guantanamo is classified, even the color of the towels prisioners use.
  - alanctgardner2 13y ago
    The source for that quote is Mohammed's attorney, I feel like he has a bit of latitude to criticize the government. He's also the source for the very sympathetic descriptions of Mohammed in the article. Not that he doesn't have a point. Its just worth noting the article is a little opaque about the sources.
mef 13y ago
It's pretty striking that a media organization which has almost no restriction on the words it publishes would characterize a torture program that included 183 waterboardings and 180 hours of sleep deprivation as "harsh interrogation"
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I've found media organizations will sensationalize the little stuff (to make it news) and de-sensationalize the wording on big stuff. My hypothesis is they want to sound less crackpot. If they call it a "torture regime deserving of the Middle Ages", they are going to lose readers, because it can be hard to take that sort of stuff seriously. You might be inclined to say, so what, lose readers. But if people don't read it, how do you spread a message?
  - gruseom 13y ago
    One can write plain English without sensationalism. Waterboarding someone 183 times is obviously torture. People only use roundabout phrases to describe torture when it's their side that did it. Conversely, it's easy to see the nature of these bureaucratic euphemisms when others use them: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/ http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versc... Tangential edit: every time I hear "enhanced interrogation techniques" I remember Orwell's classic essay: If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase [...] into the dustbin, where it belongs. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Worth saying: "waterboarding" is itself a euphemism. A more accurate term would be "drowning", or, to capture the intent of the exercise, "mock execution via drowning".
      - pvnick 13y ago
noonespecial 13y ago
The thing that will really drive them nuts... What if its a really good design? Edit: I'm not sure what the downvotes are about: I was just thinking that after years of trying to dehumanize the guy into some sort of illegible monster, what if it turns out he's a generally bright, practical, and well adjusted guy who just happend to reach the conclusion that "death to america" was a rational course of action as opposed to an insane whack-job that "hates our freedom"? That might have the tendency to upset their thinking.
- richardlblair 13y ago
  Up voting/Down voting here on HN tend to be pretty ridiculous, I wouldn't take it personally. Just engage with the community and try not to give a damn about the votes.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Over time it tends to even out - the early up/down voters tend to be superficial and react quickly, but over the next day or so the system seems to work pretty well. It's like early votes on IMDb - you shouldn't really pay much attention for a week or two, there.
    - richardlblair 13y ago
      I get what you are saying, but my comment here got up voted, and it isn't really useful. Whereas some more thoughtful but critical comments in my comment history got down voted. It makes no sense... oh, and criticize Apple and prepare to whatch your karma disappear.
      - JimmaDaRustla 13y ago
        Make an innocent joke, downvote. Make an innocent joke about Apple, upvote. Disclaimer: My comment history ;)
wf 13y ago
I'm really curious about what will eventually happen to Mohammed. Does he rot in Guantanamo forever? I thought we were closing it? He's definitely not going to get a trial, I don't believe that for a second. Does anyone have any insight here?
- deelowe 13y ago
  My opinion is that these guys will stay in GB until some president is forced to do something about it. No one is going to voluntarily open that can of worms.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I believe the current situation is that Congress blocked the closure, and Obama has not pushed it as a major issue since then. He did sign an executive order laying out a high-level plan for transferring the detainees and closing Guantanamo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanam...). But it was not implemented particularly quickly, and Congress eventually prohibited further progress on the plan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deal...).
grecy 13y ago
Does anyone else find it concerning the US have had this guy in custody for about a decade, including torture, and he's never had a trial? Innocent until proven guilty seems like a farce these days.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  I'm fascinated by the lack of any skepticism about their guilt. The public has been shown literally no proof whatsoever that they have committed any offense that warrants their imprisonment, and yet they're imprisoned essentially for life.

77 points by atestu 13y ago

So after we dehumanized a person, they acted like a person. And that "freaked us out" so ... we acted normally. You have to be f* kidding me.

kwamenum86 13y ago

This reads like satire especially toward the end

arethuza 13y ago
"confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design, a Swiffer design, or even a design for a better hand towel would apparently expose the U.S. government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger" Is he being serious?
- speeder 13y ago
  For the US government, yes. The person is being sarcastic that US government really claims that, I saw several articles on the subject already, EVERYTHING in Guantanamo is classified, even the color of the towels prisioners use.
- alanctgardner2 13y ago
  The source for that quote is Mohammed's attorney, I feel like he has a bit of latitude to criticize the government. He's also the source for the very sympathetic descriptions of Mohammed in the article. Not that he doesn't have a point. Its just worth noting the article is a little opaque about the sources.

mef 13y ago

It's pretty striking that a media organization which has almost no restriction on the words it publishes would characterize a torture program that included 183 waterboardings and 180 hours of sleep deprivation as "harsh interrogation"

sliverstorm 13y ago
I've found media organizations will sensationalize the little stuff (to make it news) and de-sensationalize the wording on big stuff. My hypothesis is they want to sound less crackpot. If they call it a "torture regime deserving of the Middle Ages", they are going to lose readers, because it can be hard to take that sort of stuff seriously. You might be inclined to say, so what, lose readers. But if people don't read it, how do you spread a message?
- gruseom 13y ago
  One can write plain English without sensationalism. Waterboarding someone 183 times is obviously torture. People only use roundabout phrases to describe torture when it's their side that did it. Conversely, it's easy to see the nature of these bureaucratic euphemisms when others use them: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/ http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/05/-versc... Tangential edit: every time I hear "enhanced interrogation techniques" I remember Orwell's classic essay: If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase [...] into the dustbin, where it belongs. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Worth saying: "waterboarding" is itself a euphemism. A more accurate term would be "drowning", or, to capture the intent of the exercise, "mock execution via drowning".
    - pvnick 13y ago

noonespecial 13y ago

The thing that will really drive them nuts... What if its a really good design? Edit: I'm not sure what the downvotes are about: I was just thinking that after years of trying to dehumanize the guy into some sort of illegible monster, what if it turns out he's a generally bright, practical, and well adjusted guy who just happend to reach the conclusion that "death to america" was a rational course of action as opposed to an insane whack-job that "hates our freedom"? That might have the tendency to upset their thinking.

richardlblair 13y ago
Up voting/Down voting here on HN tend to be pretty ridiculous, I wouldn't take it personally. Just engage with the community and try not to give a damn about the votes.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Over time it tends to even out - the early up/down voters tend to be superficial and react quickly, but over the next day or so the system seems to work pretty well. It's like early votes on IMDb - you shouldn't really pay much attention for a week or two, there.
  - richardlblair 13y ago
    I get what you are saying, but my comment here got up voted, and it isn't really useful. Whereas some more thoughtful but critical comments in my comment history got down voted. It makes no sense... oh, and criticize Apple and prepare to whatch your karma disappear.
    - JimmaDaRustla 13y ago
      Make an innocent joke, downvote. Make an innocent joke about Apple, upvote. Disclaimer: My comment history ;)

wf 13y ago

I'm really curious about what will eventually happen to Mohammed. Does he rot in Guantanamo forever? I thought we were closing it? He's definitely not going to get a trial, I don't believe that for a second. Does anyone have any insight here?

deelowe 13y ago
My opinion is that these guys will stay in GB until some president is forced to do something about it. No one is going to voluntarily open that can of worms.
_delirium 13y ago
I believe the current situation is that Congress blocked the closure, and Obama has not pushed it as a major issue since then. He did sign an executive order laying out a high-level plan for transferring the detainees and closing Guantanamo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanam...). But it was not implemented particularly quickly, and Congress eventually prohibited further progress on the plan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deal...).

grecy 13y ago

Does anyone else find it concerning the US have had this guy in custody for about a decade, including torture, and he's never had a trial? Innocent until proven guilty seems like a farce these days.

mullingitover 13y ago
I'm fascinated by the lack of any skepticism about their guilt. The public has been shown literally no proof whatsoever that they have committed any offense that warrants their imprisonment, and yet they're imprisoned essentially for life.