

The CIA and a secret vacuum cleaner - atestu
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=yGifdkEQ

======
mef
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
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
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/-versc...](http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-
dish/archive/2007/05/-versch-auml-rfte-vernehmung/228158/)

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
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
Just want to say that I love this clarification and I hope you don't mind if I
use it in the future

~~~
tptacek
It bothers me that you feel like you'd have to ask; it's the simple truth. The
word "waterboarding" is designed to abstract what people are actually doing.

~~~
pvnick
Was just trying to be nice, buddy

~~~
tptacek
Sorry, I wasn't being critical, just emphatic.

~~~
pvnick
It seems brief text-based communication presents fertile ground for
misunderstanding ;)

------
noonespecial
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
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
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
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
Make an innocent joke, downvote. Make an innocent joke about Apple, upvote.

Disclaimer: My comment history ;)

------
wf
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?

~~~
_delirium
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-guantanam...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities)). 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-
deal...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-
blow-gitmo-closure/?page=all)).

------
grecy
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
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.

------
kwamenum86
This reads like satire especially toward the end

~~~
arethuza
"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?

~~~
alanctgardner2
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.

