←back to thread

763 points tartoran | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.614s | source | bottom
Show context
hirvi74 ◴[] No.45682294[source]
Not that I agree with this decision, but is there any evidence that these reports yielded any consequences? Or rather, was it one of those, "After conducting an internal investigation, we have determined we did nothing wrong" kind of things?
replies(6): >>45682326 #>>45682397 #>>45682559 #>>45682834 #>>45683342 #>>45684098 #
1. aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.45682397[source]
I have a feeling thats exactly how it was used. But that makes its removal even more odd. The hosting cost must be trivial; an email support form connected to a shredder.

Defund the organization in charge of checking and follow-ups is one thing, but its complete removal just smell of incompetence or acknowledging of wrongdoing, or some sort of performance.

And the response is also baffling. "sorry we migrated it systems and accidentally took it down" is the handwave i expected. not "we follow the law regardless so it's not needed".

replies(4): >>45682431 #>>45682502 #>>45682542 #>>45682663 #
2. hirvi74 ◴[] No.45682431[source]
Yeah, absolutely.

I obviously do not condone the behavior of taking down such a website. I truly wish such reports were taking with the utmost severity.

As evidence, look what happened to those that were involved in the violation of human rights in Abu Ghraib Prision [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...

3. foobarian ◴[] No.45682502[source]
Guessing some mid level functionary had to come up with 3 things to do that week and this is an easy bullet point. Saying "Actually we should keep this thing because we're playing 4D chess" doesn't look good on such a status report.
replies(1): >>45682743 #
4. ssully ◴[] No.45682542[source]
It’s not odd though. This administration has been very clear that they think things like rules of engagement or caring about collateral damage are bullshit.

On a weekly basis now, they are blowing up civilian boats without any evidence wrong doing. Even if they had evidence, it still wouldn’t warrant using hellfire missiles on civilian ships, especially when the U.S. navy or coastguard is more than capable of intercept these ships.

replies(1): >>45682636 #
5. nerdponx ◴[] No.45682636[source]
My guess is that it's part of the whole "department of war" rebranding. War is hell, toughen up!

And someone out there is cheering for this, I'm sure.

replies(1): >>45682869 #
6. protoster ◴[] No.45682663[source]
Vice signalling
replies(1): >>45684450 #
7. aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.45682743[source]
I'm not sure that holds up. Because whats written in the status report is the title of this article. And thats not a good looking status report.

This week we took down the "Warcrime report form" because its hosting costs the same as the office coffee machine maintenance.

.. oo gee, mabie that one sounds a bit important. perhaps I should leave that running.

8. actionfromafar ◴[] No.45682869{3}[source]
Not just out there. Right here, plenty.
9. Dilettante_ ◴[] No.45684450[source]
Oh I'm using that.