[Content Note: Torture.]
Hey, John Brennan: Why don't you shut the fuck up?
Daily Dose of Cute
"No working. Petting."
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Environmental damage] Holy shit: "Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea."
[CN: Extreme weather; video may autoplay at link] California is bracing for what is "expected to be one of the strongest storms in terms of wind and rain" in five years: "A system fueled by the 'Pineapple Express' is delivering a steady stream of moisture directly from Hawaii to the West Coast starting Wednesday. Meteorologists describe the Pineapple Express as a long, narrow plume that pipes moisture from the tropics into the western United States. ...Some spots could see as much as 9 inches of rain. The rainfall could overwhelm waterways and road drainage systems, possibly leading to flash floods."
[CN: Domestic violence] Travis Waldron: "The National Football League's owners ratified a new personal conduct policy Wednesday afternoon, and it took league representatives less than an hour to admit that the new reforms, enhanced in the wake of several high-profile domestic violence scandals, were little more than a public relations ploy. ...The owners, [New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who was on the committee that helped design the new policy] said at a Wednesday press conference, considered handing [the authority to make the final decision on any discipline] to an independent arbitrator. But they ultimately decided, he said, that an arbitrator was a 'one-off' figure who 'can compromise or water down what our best interests are.' Instead, the owners left the authority with [NFL commissioner Roger Goodell] because the commissioner is 'the one person who understands the long-term best interests of the game,' Kraft said. It is almost impossible, given the events of the last six months, to see that as anything but an admission that this is about public relations. That's exactly what 'the best interests of the game' are."
[CN: War on agency; Christian supremacy] Oh for fuck's sake: "Doctors and administrators at a Catholic hospital in Grand Blanc, Michigan, are unnecessarily putting pregnant patients at risk by refusing to provide tubal sterilization to cesarean section patients and should be investigated by the state, according to attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union." As of 2011, 1 out of 6 US hospital patients were treated by Catholic hospitals.
Oh boy Rick Perry: "[MSNBC's Kasie Hunt] asked the governor, quite candidly, 'Are you smart enough to be president of the United States?' He replied: 'Running for the presidency's not an IQ test. It is a test of an individual's resolve. It's a test of an individual’s philosophy. It's a test of an individual's life experiences. And I think Americans are really ready for a leader that will give them a great hope about the future.' I'm a little surprised the governor didn't reply with a more direct, 'of course I'm smart enough' answer." LOL! Steve Benen FTW.
Did you love the first season of Fargo? Then you may be excited to hear that the second season is currently being cast. And I say "may," because whether you're excited probably depends on how much you like Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons, aka Breaking Bad's Meth Damon. Sounds fine to me!
Keanu forever.
And finally! This video of a rescue kitten making friends with the dog in his new family is probably the cutest thing I've ever seen. ♥
Jackie Update
[Content Note: Rape culture; sexual violence.]
The Washington Post, which has been leading the charge on discrediting Jackie, the woman at the center of Rolling Stone's story about a gang rape at the University of Virginia, has published another piece asserting that Jackie is a liar, this time interviewing the three friends who Jackie called for help. Jackie recalls their being unsupportive. The friends insist that was not the case.
That a survivor and hir support network might have different recollections following a trauma does not necessarily mean that any of them are consciously lying. It is eminently possible that friends could voice concerns about the fallout of reporting that they don't remember as being callous (or don't remember at all), and that a survivor remembers clearly, differently.
Sometimes people who fail a survivor in the immediate aftermath of a sexual assault put a different spin on what happened not just because they don't want to admit they failed, but also because they don't want the survivor to feel like they didn't care. It's a weird but common instinct to try to protect someone from your own inadequacies after the fact, to insist you cared in that moment, and to excise from your narrative anything that might suggest you didn't. Because maybe you really did care—even if you still fucked up anyway.
I don't know if that's what happened here. I just want to underline that it's possible their recollections could differ for reasons other than anyone being a conscious, malicious liar.
Which also doesn't necessarily mean someone isn't lying. But, naturally, the media coverage reflexively presumes it must be Jackie.
In covering the WaPo's latest piece, Hanna Rosin at Slate writes:
Here's the most disturbing journalistic detail to emerge from the Post's reporting: In the Rolling Stone story, [its writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely] says that she contacted Randall, but he declined to be interviewed, "citing his loyalty to his own frat." Randall told the Post he was never contacted by Erdely and would have been happy to be interviewed.Or, you know, Randall could be lying. I'm not saying he is; I'm just observing that Rosin doesn't even suggest that possibility. We are asked to consider that Jackie created a fake account, passed on that information to a reporter, and posed as Randall, but not to consider that Randall might be lying.
That could mean one of two things: Jackie could have given Erdely fake contact information for Randall and then posed as Randall herself, sending the reporter that email in which he supposedly declined to participate in the story. Erdely also could have lied about trying to contact Randall. Rolling Stone might have hinted at this possibility in its "Note to Our Readers" when it referred to a "friend of Jackie's (who we were told would not speak to Rolling Stone)" but later spoke to the Washington Post. That would take Erdely a big step beyond just being gullible and failing to check her facts, moving this piece in the direction of active wrongdoing.
The people close to Jackie all agree that something happened to her, that she was assaulted. Discrepancies in the story may have a reasonable explanation: My pal Katie Klabusich wrote about her own experience to give much-needed context for discrepancies in victims' stories.
Despite having a public platform and a degree of credibility that a private citizen doesn't enjoy, I'm not a good victim. My story isn't airtight or unchanging. Even now, when I talk about what happened to me during my four-year abusive relationship, my story has alternate versions. Depending on how much I can handle on any given day, I will leave out details or add them back in. Depending on what aspect of my story can be helpful to another survivor or current news, I will emphasize that part of my attacker's behavior. Does this mean I am lying? Certainly not; it means I am a human being with a complicated psyche and lived experience.Rolling Stone's internal line on Jackie's story at the moment seems to be that she "embellished" it, for reasons unspecified. But Rosin's piece also includes this passage:
I have softened, updated, edited, revised, reviewed, and reconfigured my rape story. The timeline is fuzzy around the edges, and if you asked me for specific details like exact date, what I was doing earlier in the day, what time the clock read, what either of us was wearing, or how much one or both of us had had to drink, well… I wouldn't have ever stood up to cross-examination.
The truth is, no one's life stands up to this kind of scrutiny — and most people don't have to tell a squeaky clean, totally together tale over and over within hours of a trauma while flinching through exams, bright lights, fears of expulsion, fears that loved ones will abandon them, fears that this all can and will happen again.
Because I didn't report, I didn't have to endure the process of retelling my story the way survivors who come forward in the hopes of prosecuting their attackers must. Most sexual assault survivors tell their story around a dozen times the first day they report — to the responding officer; to the triage clerk at the hospital; to the nurse at the hospital; to the doctor at the hospital; to their best friend who took them to the hospital; to their partner; to the detective. Having to tell your story dozens and dozens of times to dozens and dozens of people leads to discrepancies. Of course it does; how could it not?
But it is these common, understandable discrepancies that are being used to threaten a now famous-against-her-will young woman. Trauma victims often experience memory shifts. For some of us, leaving out details is a coping mechanism. For others, there is a fear of reprisal. Still others simply don't think what happened to them is everyone — or anyone — else's business.
...I have had to come to terms with my story gradually over the past five years. I didn't recognize it as rape for a long time, and processing that information took work and a lot of support. That happens with many survivors — whether they are attacked once or whether they are abused over time and work through the trauma later. There is no right way to deal with being raped; there is only the way you do it.
Erdely said she called several universities but kept hearing typical stories about sexual violence. Then she called some activists and heard this sensational story about Jackie and gang rape. Maybe the lesson there is, if one story sounds so outlandishly different than the dozens of others you've heard, you shouldn't decide to make it the centerpiece of your reporting. You should wonder why.Or maybe the lesson is that, if it turns out Jackie's story was "embellished," she was coerced into doing it (like she was coerced to keep participating even after she wanted to drop out) by someone who decided to take a pass on stories that weren't big enough; take a pass on survivors who weren't hurt badly enough. But Jackie's story was a "blockbuster," a "massive scoop," an "intense story. It was, per Rosin, "sensational."
Those of us who work in anti-rape advocacy have known this to be true for a long time: Most media outlets don't want to cover rape at all, and, if they do, they want it to be something "new" and "explosive." Just regular old raped? BO-RING! Bring us the women who have been tortured, whose stories are so gruesome that people will have to pay attention. No one cares about some "typical story about sexual violence."
The media is convinced that Jackie "embellished" her story. The same media who take a pass on stories by women who were raped, but whose stories are so familiar and typical that they're not even worth reporting, thus ensuring that only extraordinary cases will get media attention. Okay, players: If you think Jackie embellished her story, do you have any responsibility there? Or nah?
The only way a young woman who was raped can get the world to give a shit about her is to have a "blockbuster" story to tell. If the media refuses to tell any of the stories of any of the women who are raped every day in heartbreakingly typical ways yielding stories the depressing mundanity of which don't make for explosive headlines, for what are we supposed to hope? That women get raped in ever more horrific ways, just so the media is willing to talk about rape at all?
Discrepancies are not embellishments. (And deliberate lies told in misdirection to coercive media aren't embellishments, either.) But if any member of a media who has described Jackie's story with exclamatory adjectives ever discovers a survivor who embellished a story to get people to give a shit, they need to take a long, lingering look in the mirror for a long overdue reckoning about the threshold they're creating for access to visibility and concern.
And, since everyone seems to have forgotten: For three years, long before Jackie's story was even published in Rolling Stone, the University of Virginia has been under federal investigation for Title IX violations specifically related to sexual violence. Three years. The investigation is open and ongoing.
More Positive Momentum for Trans* Troops
Following Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's statement in May that he's willing to review the US military's policy on out transgender servicemembers, and three retired US generals speaking out in August on behalf of letting out transgender servicemembers serve, and the ACLU's summit on trans* service in October, and Army Board for Correction of Military Records' decision earlier this month to allow trans* veterans to change their names on their Release or Discharge from Active Duty docs, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, the top official in the US Air Force has spoken out in support of allowing trans* servicemembers to openly serve:
James said that the military is preparing to reassess its policies against including trans staff and soldiers in the nation's war machine.Simple. Direct. To the point. Right on.
James said in an interview with USA Today, "Times change."
The ban on trans troops, she said, "is likely to come under review in the next year or so, so I think we should stand by."
"From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve," James concluded.
Of Course He Does
[Content Note: Torture.]
Former Vice President Dick Cheney Says CIA Torture Report Is 'Full of Crap':
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says a declassified Senate report on the controversial post-9/11 CIA interrogation program is "full of crap."Speaking of throwing people under the bus, Cheney made sure to emphasize that his former boss knew exactly what was going on: Then-President George W. Bush "was in fact an integral part of the program. He had to approve it before we moved forward with it. He knew everything he needed to know and wanted to know about the program." Noted!
"I think it is a terrible report, deeply flawed," Cheney said on Fox News, his first televised interview since the report's release. "It's a classic example of where politicians get together and throw professionals under the bus."
Cheney said he had not read the entire 6,000-page classified document, drafted by Democrats and their staffs on the Senate Intelligence Committee, or the 500-page declassified and redacted executive summary. But he unequivocally said its findings were flawed and an affront to members of the CIA.
Cheney's main argument about the report being "full of crap," besides the charge of "classic" partisan scapegoating, is that people who are critical of torture—a categorization he rejects, naturally—have forgotten the context in which it happened.
The former vice president said he's particularly bothered by criticism over the treatment of Khalid Sheilk Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. "He is in our possession, we know he's the architect [of the attacks], what are we supposed to do? Kiss him on both cheeks?" Cheney said.That is the rankest of rank false dichotomies. It's not like "kiss him on both cheeks" or "torture him" were our only options. There is a vast, cavernous space between being "nice" to someone and torturing him.
"How nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3,000 people on 9/11?"
Asked whether the ends justify the means when it comes to brutal interrogations, Cheney said, "absolutely."Yeah. We know. That's kind of the problem.
"I'd do it again in a minute," he said.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Kathy_A: "What talent did you discover you possessed somewhat later in life (i.e., not as a child but as a young or older adult)?"
Finish This Sentence...
The television channel with the lyingest lying liar name is...
...I honestly cannot decide between A&E (Arts & Entertainment) or TLC (The Learning Channel), both of which have equal amounts of, respectively, arts & entertainment and learning. That is to say, none.
On Twitter, @lizzrest made the case for The History Channel, which is also a very strong contender!
WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE? MAKE YOUR CASE!
The Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by granola bars.
Recommended Reading:
Carla: The White Conversation on Race
Marilyn: [Content Note: Fat hatred; disordered eating; bariatric surgery] The Danger of Being the Fattest Person Alive
TLC: [CN: Transphobia] Victory: Gender Change Order in Indiana
BYP: Illinois Passes Bill Making It Illegal to Record Police if Police Can Claim a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Danielle: [CN: Racist violence and rhetoric] If You're Not About Justice I Want Nothing to Do With You
Angry Asian Man: This Harvard Business School Professor Was Overcharged $4 for Chinese Takeout. Now He's Going to Make Them Paaaaaay!
Robot Hugs: [CN: Rape culture. Please note there is a transcript of the images at the bottom of the post, if you cannot view them.] Risky Date
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
I Write Letters
[Content Note: Rape culture.]
Dear People Arguing Overtly or Obliquely That It's a Terrible Idea to Reflexively Believe Survivors:
I see you.
I see you and I hold you in contempt.
Because you purport to care about men who are falsely accused and convicted, but you don't care about the reality that men who have been exonerated after being falsely prosecuted and convicted, virtually always in stranger rape cases where women didn't know and couldn't identify their attackers, are men—often poor black men—who were railroaded by police and prosecutors. Not by survivors.
Because you purport to care about the ubiquity of rape, but care less about a vanishingly small conviction rate than you do about a vanishingly small rate of false reports. Or that many reports deemed "false" were merely unprovable. Or disbelieved by authorities.
Because you purport to care about survivors, and because you make arguments like believing survivors without "proof" makes it harder for other victims, but you aren't listening to those of us who are telling you that believing other survivors, even despite "discrepancies" in their stories, does not make it harder for us; disbelieving them does.
I see you.
Regards,
Liss
P.S. The Costs of Disbelief.
Fair AND Balanced!
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; gender essentialism.]
Hey, remember when our favorite Christian friend Kirk Cameron made a message for Moms about how they're responsible for making Christmas perfect for everyone? Well, guess what? He's got a message for Dads, too!
Men. Fathers. Husbands. Sons. Our example in our family's life is so important at Christmastime. So be all in this year. Don't be a bah humbug! Support the women in your life. Put up the lights, prepare the house, and realize how blessed you are. Remember: Jesus came to serve, and so should you and I. Oh! And you know what the really manly thing to do this Christmas is? How about the dishes?! Or give your wife a good foot massage. That would be awesome, because I'm thinking she deserves it. And you know what another amazing thing you could do is? Take your whole family and see Saving Christmas this weekend. That would be awesome. You got this! [high five at the camera]Again, that is a perfect advertisement for a perfect movie!
Obviously, I love everything about this. Especially how men should "serve" by doing the dishes after their wives plan the meal, do the grocery shopping, prepare the food, cook the food, serve the food, clear the food, and wrap up the leftover food. Seems fair. Especially when you throw in the "service" of giving a foot massage to a wife after she does literally everything else besides stringing up lights to make Christmas special for the entire family.
"Hey, honey, because I'm a good Christian man, I noticed you look like you could use a 5-minute foot massage after you bought Christmas cards, filled out Christmas cards, addressed Christmas cards, mailed Christmas cards, bought baking ingredients, baked cookies, got our Christmas box down from the attic, decorated the house, hung up the kids' stockings, helped kids write letters to Santa, bought all the kids' Christmas presents, wrapped all the kids' Christmas presents, hid the kids' Christmas presents where they couldn't find them, set up the tree, decorated the tree, made travel arrangements for my parents, cleaned up the guest room, moved my golf clubs from the guest room into the garage, picked my parents up at the airport while I was stringing those lights, and probably two dozen other things I couldn't be arsed to notice, but boy oh boy did you do your Christian wifely duty of making Christmas special for everyone and maintaining your joy through it all! Now howsabout that foot rub before the game comes on?"
Merry Christmas, ladies!
Daily Dose of Cute
Upside-down Matilda.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Oh, Pandas
As you may recall, in August, a panda at the Chimelong Safari Park in Guangzhou, China, gave birth to triplets. Now, I don't know if you know this about pandas or not, but they are maybe not the pinnacle of evolutionary success. They're basically giant adorable doofuses who can barely procreate without human intervention, and aren't much better at parenting when a mama manages to successfully give birth to one of the most absurdly delicate babies on the planet.
(That is exaggerated for comic effect. But just barely.)
So you can only imagine the chaotic ineptitude when triplets are born. Luckily, there were humans around to help! And by "help," I mean "do everything."
The triplets are now four months old, and have been recently reunited with their mother:
When NBC News visited the triplets on their two-month birthday at China's Chimelong Safari Park, their mother was only able to cope with one baby at a time and the triplets were rotated. The others were raised by keepers.This is the picture that accompanied the article:
For the last two weeks their mother has been caring for two of them at a time. Experts judged that she was able to take full parental control.
"We did a lot of preparation," Dong Guixin, the safari park's general manager, told NBC News on Tuesday.
But it was a tense moment when the family was fully united.
"Everybody was holding their breath at that moment," he said. "One of the three was very nervous and stayed at the gate. Mother Juxiao waited for a moment and then went to her baby. Then she hugged the baby like humans do, we felt so moved. Personally, I think is a success."
"You call this a success?! HALLLLP!"
LOL. Don't worry—zie's fine! But, y'know, this is sorta why the babies couldn't hang out with their mama until they were strong enough to withstand getting carelessly trampled, basically. Oh, pandas.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Note: Videos autoplay at links] Time's Person of the Year for 2014 is The Ebola Fighters. The first runner-up is The Ferguson Protesters. I don't disagree with their choices—although I will note that Time has not selected an individual woman as its "X of the Year" since then-president of the Philippines Corazon Aquino was named Woman of the Year in 1986. In 1999, Time changed the annual year-end honorific, which had almost exclusively been a "Man of the Year" since its inception, to "Person of the Year," but it merely created an illusion of parity. Still no individual women.
[CN: Rape culture] The New York Observer reports that Rolling Stone founder and publisher Jann Wenner refused to accept the resignation of deputy managing editor Sean Woods over Jackie's story and the magazine's mistakes. The anonymous source providing that information also indicates that the inside line on what happened appears to be that Jackie "embellished" her story. So much fuckery. And the Observer's reporting is garbage too: "UVA reporting brouhaha" and "Rolling Stone's blockbuster story about campus rape at the University of Virginia." Jesus Jones.
[Content Note: Christian supremacy] The Michigan House has passed legislation giving service providers "the right to deny service to anyone who does not adhere to their religious beliefs. ...The bill will now go to the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate." Naturally, this law is designed explicitly to allow employers to deny contraception coverage and to discriminate against members of the LGBTQI community.
[CN: War on agency] Meanwhile, in Ohio: "On Tuesday, facing an uphill battle in their attempt to pass a stringent anti-abortion bill as a standalone measure, Ohio lawmakers attempted to tack it onto an unrelated piece of legislation that aims to reduce infant mortality." They are shameless.
[CN: Violence; guns] The prosecutors in Oscar Pistorius' murder trial have been granted the right to appeal the verdict after he was found guilty of the lesser charge of culpable homicide. It was the same judge, Judge Thokozile Masipa, who rendered the verdict that also granted the appeal, having been convinced that "prosecutor Gerrie Nel had raised 'questions of law' that another court could interpret differently." The prosecution's likelihood of winning is not terribly strong, but at least it will make Pistorious squirm for awhile longer, which is the least he deserves, frankly.
Howard Dean: "Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified person in the United States to serve as President. If she runs, I will support her." If she runs. See how easy that was?
[CN: Homophobia] In Alabama, "a three-person review panel" somehow missed that a "NOHOMO" vanity license plate was inappropriate.
And finally: Oh dogs. "Koni and Kona are a pair of German shepherds that were left tied to a fence and abandoned by their owner. Using the cover of night, they were tied to a fence outside a local Humane Society with leashes. Koni became so distressed he chewed his way free, but sat by his mate Kona still tied to the fence, and refused to leave without her. ...As time went by, the shelter staff kept faith that the bonded pair would be able to find a forever home together. On Wednesday evening, their faith was rewarded. Kona and Koni we adopted as a pair." Blub.
Santorum 4 Prez: Part Wev in an Ongoing Series
Former Republican Senator and former presidential candidate and current yuckmonster Rick Santorum has been threatening for months to run for president again in 2016, and, although he has yet to file the official paperwork, he's basically announced that he's definitely totally for sure absolutely running—and this time it's gonna be different. Except for one crucial detail:
His iconic sweater vests will likely make a return appearance.Thank Jesus Jones!
Former CIA Directors Respond to Torture Report
[CN: Torture.]
Former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden, and former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland, and Stephen Kappes have penned a lengthy response to the Torture Report for the Wall Street Journal.
I recommend reading the entire thing, but two things in particular jumped out at me:
1. The continued justification of torture on the basis that it "saved thousands of lives." That contention is based on the fact that the "detention and interrogation program," as they like to call it, yielded intelligence that thwarted terror plots. Which may be true.
(Or may be more trumped-up bullshit to claim victories that really aren't. Also: If you haven't seen The Newburgh Sting, I highly recommend it.)
But if it is indeed accurate that real, serious, likely, catastrophic terror plots were thwarted, there is no evidence that they couldn't have been thwarted using other means. There's no suggestion that other means were even tried. The former directors say, simply: "We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program."
That is truly not good enough.
And it also not good enough for this policy to be continually defended on the basis that it "saved thousands of lives" as though every life that was allegedly saved definitely belongs to a person who wants torture used to "save" them. I realize not everyone feels the same way, but, presuming for a moment that their contention about torture saving lives was even true, I am eminently willing to assume more personal risk in order to not have people tortured.
Further, there is no reflection at all upon the fact that saving "thousands of lives" using a torture program which has become a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists might have risked countless other lives in the long run.
If saving lives is really the only metric that matters, then surely the reports which have found that US' use of torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, and drones have made us less safe and put more lives at risk needs to be part of that equation.
2. A variation on the President's argument that we (and especially those damn dirty Democrats in the Senate) need to understand that they did what they had to in the wake of 9/11, which was a different time:
The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. ...In this atmosphere, time was of the essence and the CIA felt a deep responsibility to ensure that an attack like 9/11 would never happen again. We designed the detention and interrogation programs at a time when "relationship building" was not working with brutal killers who did not hesitate to behead innocents.So, this is a really interesting juxtaposition, because the former directors reference the beheading of civilians as the reason that they couldn't possibly have been reasonably expected to engage in relationship building (it's cool how they put that in scare quotes)—but IS is beheading civilians more frequently and visibly than al-Qaeda was in 2001.
...On that important issue it is important to know that the dilemma CIA officers struggled with in the aftermath of 9/11 was one that would cause discomfort for those enamored of today's easy simplicities: Faced with post-9/11 circumstances, CIA officers knew that many would later question their decisions—as we now see—but they also believed that they would be morally culpable for the deaths of fellow citizens if they failed to gain information that could stop the next attacks.
And yet this is a dilemma the CIA faced only in the aftermath of 9/11. And not one they are facing now. (Nor one they evidently faced after the Boston Marathon bombing.) Which speaks to political pressure, rather than a strictly objective response to facts on the ground.
That's a problem, too. When fear and politics drives CIA policy, well, apparently it looks a lot like torture.
