Yo. May we have your attention, please? May we have
your attention, please? We are about to re-enter the Zone of Unpredictable
Connectivity. If you thought our updates were sparse in the last few weeks,
there's no telling how you'll react once we re-enter the Zone.
The universe is inherently uncertain.
Plurp. From a sign this week beside a "voice over IP" phone.
Q: What is VoIP ?
A: A technology which converts
an analog signal into a digital signal and uses the traditional data network
to transport it.
"The traditional data network." We love that.
Plop. You knew all along that the U.S. government was using brutal
interrogation techniques on unconvicted "detainees" since 9/11 and, in
some cases, using foreign intelligence agencies to torture them.
Now everyone
else does too.
US officials have said the
CIA's methods of interrogating suspected al-Qaeda leaders are too brutal
[...]. [The New York Times] cites one case of a detainee who was subjected
to a technique known as water boarding, in which a prisoner is strapped
down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe that he might drown.
[...]
Officials say some [detainees] have
been send abroad.
"There was a debate after 9/11 about
how to make people disappear," a former intelligence official told the
paper.
The government was advised that if
the CIA was considering procedures which violated the Geneva Convention
or US laws prohibiting torture and degrading treatment, it would not be
held responsible if it could be argued that the detainees were in the custody
of another country.
So it's simple. If your own country's laws forbid you to torture folks,
get a brutal ally to do it for you. You can even stand there and tell them
what to do. That doesn't violate anybody's rights, does it?
We know. You wonder what this has to do with the current mess in Iraq.
Well, it turns out it wasn't just the CIA, and it
wasn't just detainees.
A summary of "Interrogation
Rules of Engagement" provided to senators by Army officials says that,
with a general's written approval, prisoners could be subjected to stressful
positions for up to 45 minutes, isolation for more than 30 days, military
dogs and up to 72 hours of "sleep management."
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said he believed
the policy would allow prisoners to be held "naked, with a bag over their
head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes."
Both Pace and Wolfowitz said such
treatment would appear to violate the Geneva Conventions. But they said
they weren't familiar with the interrogation techniques approved for use
in Iraq.
We read two amazing things there. (1) The Army approved interrogation techniques
that appear to violate the Geneva Conventions. (2) The two top guys at
the Pentagon were unfamiliar with the rules that were approved.
That seems like a problem to us. But it's probably just us.
Rant. There's a reason that pedophilia was so widespread in the
Catholic church. There's a reason why corrupt financial practices were
so widespread in Enron. There's a reason why abhorrent interrogation techniques
were so widespread in Iraq (and elsewhere).
In each of these institutions, illegal behavior was at least condoned,
and sometimes encouraged. The leadership was convinced that they were above
the law, above the mores of mere mortals. They were convinced that they
could bend the rules, or break them, or ignore them entirely. And this
became so much the norm that their entire institution followed suit, creating
an environment in which these abuses seemed normal.
In each case, when they first came to light, the leadership assured
us that these transgressions were the fault of a few bad apples. Surely,
they said, this will not stain the large, more pristine institution that
we run. And in each case, it became clear that the bad apples were not
few in number, nor had they fallen far from the tree.
There's a reason for all of this. And the reason is: corrupt leadership.
Corrupt leadership that set up the conditions for the problems to occur,
ignored the warning signs when they did and decided that it was primarily
a PR problem when they came to light. Only after worldwide outrage did
they do anything to actually address the problem and stop the abuses.
That does not absolve the underlings from responsibility for their actions.
They, too, acted abhorrently. But it does indict the leadership for their
manifest malfeasance.
Come to think of it, maybe indictment is a good idea.
