The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Here is what I learned.
Our highest government officials, up to and including President Bush, broke international and U.S. laws banning torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Worse, they made their subordinates in the military and civilian intelligence services break those laws for them.
When the men and women they asked to break those laws protested, knowing they could be prosecuted for torture, they pretended to rewrite the law. They commissioned legal opinions they said would shield those who carried out the abuses from being hauled into court, as the torture ban requires. “The law has been changed,” detainees around the world were told. “No rules apply.”
Then they tortured. They tortured men at military bases and detention centers in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Guantánamo, and in U.S. Navy bases on American soil; they tortured men in secret CIA prisons set up across the globe specifically to terrorize and torture prisoners; they sent many more to countries with notoriously abusive regimes and asked them to do the torturing. At least twice, after the torturers themselves concluded there was no point to further abuse, Washington ordered that the prisoners be tortured some more.
They tortured innocent people. They tortured people who may have been guilty of terrorism-related crimes, but they ruined any chance of prosecuting them because of the torture. They tortured people when the torture had nothing to do with imminent threats: They tortured based on bad information they had extracted from others through torture; they tortured to hide their mistakes and to get confessions; they tortured sometimes just to break people, pure and simple.
And they conspired to cover up their crimes. They did this from the start, by creating secret facilities and secrecy regimes to keep what they were doing from the American people and the world. They did it by suppressing and then destroying evidence, including videotapes of the torture. They did it by denying detainees legal process because, as the CIA’s Inspector General put it in a 2004 report, when you torture someone you create an “Endgame” problem: You end up with detainees who, “if not kept in isolation, would likely divulge information about the circumstances of their detention.”
They managed all this, for a time, through secrecy—a secrecy that depended on the aggressive suppression of two groups of voices.
Over and over again, in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Guantánamo, in secret CIA black sites and at CIA headquarters, in the Pentagon, and in Washington, men and women recognized the torture for what it was and refused to remain silent. They objected, protested, and fought to prevent, and then to end, these illegal and immoral interrogations. While the president and his top advisers approved and encouraged the torture of prisoners, there was dissent in every agency, at every level.
The documents are full of these voices. In fact, it is thanks to these dissenters that much of the documentary record exists. From emails among FBI agents sharing their shock over scenes they had witnessed in interrogation booths in Guantánamo, to letters and memoranda for the record, to major internal investigations, the documents show that those who ordered and carried out the torture did so despite constant warnings and objections that their actions were ineffective, short-sighted, and wrong. It is no wonder that so many of these documents were suppressed.
SINGLE PAGE

In the fullness of candor:
I hope that Obama will do NOTHING,
or as little as possible until he is replaced; no joke.

cicerone imposter wrote:

c) starting two illegal wars,

Just out of curiosity, what was "illegal" about either of those wars ???????
WHICH law was violated by the Republicans ???

BillRM wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 've heard that thay DON'T WORK, (except for closing the inside of stores).

Most of the experts on bears claims it does, for the most part, work on bears and is one hell of a good idea to carry in bear country.

Not safe; heavy duty firepower is necessary (or stay home).
Police have tested that with each other, allowing each other to spray it in their faces. It failed to break a charge.

Maybe a hollowpointed .44 special or .44 magnum 'd save the day.

Do u know anything about "Extreme Shock" ammunition ?
Any opinions ?
https://www.extremeshockusa.com/

That GW Bush ignored the UN charter only means GW Bush broke international law.

BillRM wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 've heard that thay DON'T WORK, (except for closing the inside of stores).

Most of the experts on bears claims it does, for the most part, work on bears
and is one hell of a good idea to carry in bear country.

Not safe; heavy duty firepower is necessary (or stay home).
Police have tested that with each other, allowing each other to spray it in their faces. It failed to break a charge.

Depends on the type of bear, and depends on why it is attacking you.

Sometimes spray will work, and sometimes it won't. It's worth having it just in case it works.
It's also worth having a gun just in case it doesn't.

Maybe a hollowpointed .44 special or .44 magnum 'd save the day.

.44 special is way too weak for bear defense, and hollowpoints lack the needed penetration.

If a handgun is to be used for bear defense, it should be a .44 magnum loaded with heavy solids.
It should also be single action, because the shape of the grip
makes the substantial recoil much more manageable.

Better to have a rifle though.
A lever action .35 Remington is good if you only have to worry about black bear and puma.

9.3x62 Mauser is good if you have to worry about more dangerous bears and cats.

Make sure the bolt action is a "controlled feed" type.
The other types of bolt action are not reliable enough for emergency defense.

Do u know anything about "Extreme Shock" ammunition ?
Any opinions ?
https://www.extremeshockusa.com/

Frangible ammo might be good if you want to be sure not to penetrate the wall
and hit the innocent old lady living in the next apartment.
Against a bear it would be a disaster. No penetration.

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

Quote:

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

Quote:

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

Are you as old as Bob Dylan Dave?

He tells somewhere about nuclear attack drills in school where his class
was required to get under their desks. He told it in such a way
that it was obvious that scaring the kids was the objective rather
than rendering them safe from such an attack. And to hate the Soviets.

And to avoid teaching. [ ????? ]

Putting it more cleanly, to create xenophobic anxiety the easy way. . . .

Kennedy was accurate, in that a liberal does NOT
look back to a contract by which he has bound himself (to see what it actually requires),
rather he looks ahead as to how he can twist it to his advantage.
He "welcomes new ideas" regarding how he can evade his duties
under that contract, and how he can dishonestly milk it for his illicit benefit.

The public schools had broad, tall glass windows
for exposure to sunlight. A nuclear blast at an un-certain distance
cud have caused 1OOOs of fragments of flying glass,
shredding students' faces. Not all of them wud like that.
Getting down below metal or wooden desks
wud avoid their trajectory.

Kennedy was accurate, in that a liberal does NOT
look back to a contract by which he has bound himself (to see what it actually requires),
rather he looks ahead as to how he can twist it to his advantage.
He "welcomes new ideas" regarding how he can evade his duties
under that contract, and how he can dishonestly milk it for his illicit benefit.

Some would say that that is what evolution does
with the biological contract under the exigencies of time.

A liberal once was a person who winced a little whilst the crowd
was baying for more whilst Christians were being tortured to death in the arena.
Or didn't believe that Caesar was God.

You just like guns.

It has nothing to do with the Constitution. That is merely a plaything for your fancy.

If you were to be as honest as many are in Lola's Coffee-House (the aroma drags people through the door)
about food I for one would find your views of interest.

If I ever feel sad, I remember that: it cheers me up.

Maybe; who r the parties to that contract ?

Many people know that orthodoxy, conservatism, liberalism n radicalism
r measures of adherence or of rejection n deviation from
a designated criterion, whatever it may be.
To be conservative, u must be un-yieldingly rigid in adhering
to a designated body of rules; whereas, to be liberal, u must stray from it.
To be radical, u must reject it "from the root", uprooting it.

When Boris Yeltsin became a liberal qua communism, turning away from it,
that was a WONDERFUL, joyous event, replete with beauty.

Whether liberalism is good or bad
depends on WHAT it is that the liberal is deviating FROM.

I love its constriction of the jurisdiction of government