Hacker News Reader

Comment by zyxzevn | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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-...

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"You do realise that the USA is supposed to have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”?"

Oh come on. A simple slogan is hardly evidence that we're all individually and collectively responsible for the things our government does.

It's hardly a "simple slogan". It's supposed to be the foundational ethos of a democracy. The fact that most people in the USA do not care enough to live by it is a big problem. Unfortunately it seems people like don't even believe in the ethos, so we're quite a long way from where Abe Lincoln wanted his country to be in this respect.

TIL that Abraham Lincoln founded our country on a vision statement.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the People. Not "We the currently elected and appointed politicians and bureaucrats."

The argument that 330+ million people should feel responsible for the outcomes of tens of thousands of elections they cannot vote in is absurd.

You might as well say that someone in Germany should take more responsibility for the actions of the Catalonian separatists. It is on its face ridiculous. There is literally nothing I can do about, say, the governor of a state not stepping down when he loses an election.

Sorry about that, I usually assume people are my age and were alive and voting at the time.

Even if we are, we may still not be responsible for the government's actions. The US is run by majority rule, so when something is decided, it doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the whole citizenry.

The US is not run by majority rule, the most obvious evidence for that is that the person who got to most votes in the last presidential election is not the president. If you want more evidence, look at the shape of some of the Congressional districts to see how politicians can pick their voters so that their election is a foregone conclusion.

The US has a representative government which the voters have influence on, but they don't get the final say.

>Even if we are, we may still not be responsible for the government's actions. The US is run by majority rule, so when something is decided, it doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the whole citizenry.

Even in a dictatorship the people are partially responsible for what they didn't stop from happening.

It's not like "I was in the minority, so I have no responsibility at all".

How do we feel about German citizens in the 30s who went on doing their business, knowing what was going on, and merely "disagreeing" with it?

At best they were cowards. At worst they were enablers...

It sounds like you are blaming the victims here. Were the Jews, gays, Gypsies etc. in Germany also partially responsible?

Were the Jews, gays, gypsies spared and privileged because of their race, and carried on living as if nothing bad is going on, turning a blind eye to the atrocities?

Rather the opposite.

You're trying to make the "looking the other way" citizens into victims...

More accurate would be the objectively true statement: Most Americans were unaware of this and were not involved in the decision to do so in any way whatsoever.

Citizens in a democracy share responsibly for the actions of their government.

Heck, even citizens in an authoritarian regime share responsibly for its actions - if they didn't do anything to oppose them.

Merely disagreeing with the actions, or minding their own personal affairs, don't absolve of the responsibility.

We should think of them the same way we talk about those Germans who knew what was going on (re Jews, camps, etc) but kept their mouth shut, tended to their families and jobs, and pretended it was business as usual.

I do not think that living in a place makes you responsible for e.g. murders done by people you have never met who are in a different place (but aren’t so far away as to be a TOTALLY different place), no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com