Guardian

We have been getting concerned about the quality of the Guardian. The amount of space given to advertising, entertainment and other media matters seems to be increasing, while the amount of space given to what used to be called news is decreasing. There seems to have been a change for the worse over the past few months; perhaps the bean-counters are starting to make waves about their overdraft.

One feature of this has been the introduction of centerfold essays, previously noticed at references 1 and 2. Some of which are interesting, concern about content drift notwithstanding. And the other day there was another, this time about torturing terrorist suspects and the long hard battle fought by the security services in the USA to keep this torture as secret as possible. A battle which they eventually lost, at least in large part, as is evidenced by the snap left. See reference 3 should you want your own copy of this redacted report from no less a body that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

I was intrigued that we were allowed to learn that the unredacted report was top secret and that it was not to be seen by anything other than US eyes. Even more that there was some third security marking between these two that was secret in itself; it was not enough that the content should be secret. Perhaps it was something like 'not to be seen by politicians', which while not completely unreasonable, was a tricky one to explain to a now skeptical public.

But even though I had probably read about the report when it was first published towards the end of 2014, I was shocked to read how far the torture had gone. One understands that police interrogations can get a bit rough, need to get a bit rough if investigations are to make progress, but there are - or at least should be - rules of engagement and the person being interrogated has the right to have a solicitor present as a witness to what goes on, to ensure that the interrogators stick to the rules. While this torture went well beyond anything that a decent society should allow. What kind of people did the US security services have to hire to do this sort of thing for them?

I was only slightly less shocked to read of how far the security services went to obstruct the subsequent senate investigation.

And disappointed that President Obama does not get a starring role. He seemed to have been too content just to put it all aside, to leave it in the past, largely unseen. Perhaps like some of our liberals, he was wary of appearing to be soft on law and order. He had to protect his right flank.

Reference 1: http://psmv3.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-race-to-save-dying-language.html.

Reference 2: http://psmv3.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/potatoes.html.

Reference 3: ask google about 'ssci study'.