http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf 62.6 MB
"Do you want to open or save?" Open. "Do you want to open or save?" So I go look for report elsewhere: 600 pp. ±, out of 6000 pp. ±, on 6M pp. ± written by dems, damning republicans (no surprise); disputed by Bush 43 personnel and CIA; defended by media, dems, and STUPO 44.
So, it's a lot of partisan bickering with no real resolution of intelligence issues, purposes, or procedures.
What all have I omitted?
Do you think it's good, or bad, that the US would release those CIA torture reports?
Good, for sure. Everyone else in the world has always known about Bush's deception. It's about time that his own citizens learn the truth.
As a citizen of a country that name is officially blackened in the report, I'm somewhat annoyed. First you do that, and later as side effect of your leaks / internal cleaning up damage image of your allies.
Anyway seems that Obama learnt how much fuzz there is with all those captured terrorist and how little they tell during interrogation. So decided to apply an approach that is simpler and harder to challenge as human rights issue - drones.
Call it pretentious phony posturing, infantile stupidity, residents of glass houses throwing stones, the first mud-slinging of the 2016 election, a pre-emptive excuse for Obama's next stupid stunt, whatever you will, it's not "good" or "bad," it's pretty much business as usual.
What is not known cannot be spoken and cannot be repaired. We Americans have precisely the government that we deserve.
The author of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper addressed it well in his masterwork, The Open Society and Its Enemies, in which he made clear that the Constitution of The United States is unique among all history for binding the tyrant government. We have loosed his bindings, unleashing horrors unimagined.
The other possibility is that it's a devilishly clever ploy to get the bad guys to crawl out from under their rocks for another round of "whack a mole." Nah --- "44" ain't that bright.
But yes I think he is right about that.
I both agree and disagree with that. (Frankly, it's an incredibly complex subject for someone who doesn't live with it.) Your voting record is appalling. Those who are allowed to vote and choose not to are responsible for the state of affairs; those who want to and aren't allowed to (boundary redistributions, ID requirements, etc.) are not and I'm sure would rather trade places with the former.
Before anyone points it out, we don't have a much better turn-out here. At least no one was actively prevented from voting until our current administration got involved. (The robocalls were just as heinous as Bush's "dangling chads"—which I still think sounds like a venereal disease—but at least someone is going to prison for it.)
That's a much more charitable assessment than is really deserved. Lot of it is a function of ballot structure --- voters don't have to know anything about a candidate --- they just vote for "Ds" or "Rs" or, for the contrarians among us, the "Is" come election.
Pretty sure an enema is rectal rehydration.
There is not a spit of difference among the D, R, and L, they are all progressives. Progressivism being the political bowel movement to make-things-better and leave US to suffer the consequences. The two party system is good cop - bad cop writ large.
See Angelo Codevilla's essay, America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution The essay, not the book!
I never watch "The View" because those shrieking women who insist upon talking simultaneously and each louder than the others just give me a headache. That having been said, I caught the beginning of it today because it was on while I was programming my DVR this morning. They were discussing this very topic, and Rosie O'Donnell pointed out that legally a forceable enema is rape.
Yeah, about that.
That's not quite the same thing. To start with, the prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere were not entitled to any rights at all under the innocent-sounding "Patriot Act". That's pretty much what enabled Nazi concentration camps. Secondly, in a legitimate "detain for suspicion" situation, a search for weapons or drugs is reasonable as a safety issue. Forcibly introducing a foreign substance is not. I'm pretty sure that a doctor would classify it as "an invasive procedure" (but I'll retract that if a doctor disagrees). I personally think that anyone detained and shown to be innocent should automatically have "unlawful confinement" charges (I think that you call it "false arrest" in the US) laid against the arresting parties and damages awarded, but that would financially and logistically cripple the government. I refer here to normal law-enforcement such as city police, sheriffs, and the like, not just war crimes.
Are you talking here about vague Platonic ideas, or you mean you would like to finance that through your taxes? And provide all those people who were detained without good evidence enough money for buying proper explosives?
Well, yes. Compulsory enemas and anal cavity searches are technically different violations.
First, PATRIOT Act is unrelated to enemy combatants or their disposition under military authority. Second, Bell v. Wolfish applies to persons who haven't been convicted of any crime. Third, Bell v. Wolfish clearly establishes at least one lawful cause for cavity penetration; and I raised it only to note that Americans have been cognizant of invasive procedures like these for decades without considering them rape.
I imagine this skips over a few steps.
So forcible enemas for safety, but not forcible enemas for evacuating force-fed intestines. What's the consistent dividing line between a good forcible enema and a bad one?
Like a gloved finger? You can't penetrate the anus without introducing a foreign substance, not unless we're talking about gymnastics usually reserved for more off-color conversation.
No argument here, or from the Supreme Court for that matter.
Well, we all have a point where accommodation is just too much.
In the context of my statement, yes. If I were walking down the street minding my own business and was suddenly jumped, pepper sprayed, and clubbed by a couple of cops and thrown into jail overnight, I'd sure as hell be looking for some explosives when I got out.
As for the funding, maybe if liability was paid for the public, they'd be a little more diligent about keeping the cops on a leash.
Maybe I got my US laws mixed up; I mean the one that says they can arbitrarily call you a terrorist and lock you up in Gitmo with no arrest, no trial, no lawyer, no phone call, no proper toilet and no contact with the outside world and torture you. Call it what you will; I don't think that it's right.
Also a huge percentage of the prisoners were not "enemy combatants".
Where are you getting that? The force-fed part is the foreign object insertion that I meant. Force-feeding via a laryngeal tube is not illegal, although it should be, but by your own laws anything south of the belt is a sex crime. I don't know how it applies from one jurisdiction to another. (You do realize that the point of contention was force-feeding via the rectum, to overcome hunger-strikes, right?)
I do think that body scanning should be done in place of cavity searches, but that would involve a cross-over to prison hospital wards or hospital prison wards or both.
Separate names with a comma.