@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@PannicAtack said:

@uninspiredcup said:

@thegerg said:

Who?

A well known 4chan member who appears to suffer from mental problems.

Not a 4channer. He's someone that 4channers have gone after, but I don't think he's a user, himself.

Anyway, surprised that people still follow what he does. There hasn't been anything funny out of him in years. Now it's just more sad than anything else.

pfft, my sides are in orbit, one might say they're nuclear.

Yeah, I'm not feeling it.

It could be treated similarly to other cases of invasion of privacy, and prosecute similarly.

Not a 4channer. He's someone that 4channers have gone after, but I don't think he's a user, himself.

Anyway, surprised that people still follow what he does. There hasn't been anything funny out of him in years. Now it's just more sad than anything else.

He's referring to the cigarettes.

I like how you say he was "selling illegal narcotics," like he was some kind of dangerous drug dealer out of Breaking Bad or something, rather than a schmo who was selling cigarettes to other schmoes. Really shows your honesty, OP. Fucking bravo.

Yes, the police assaulting and killing a man for selling cigarettes totally isn't something anyone should be upset about. After all, when the shitbag got in his face he waved his arms out of reflex, which means he's "resisting arrest" and so the police are justified in anything they do, even though he's clearly not an actual threat to anyone.

Characters from a cartoon show. There was a loud portion of fans who wanted them to end up together, but they didn't because the showrunners wanted to do their own thing that had been building up from pretty much the start of the series.

The show ended like six years ago and the shippers still haven't gotten over their dumb pairing?

I suppose "animals" is defined as "anyone the CIA feels the need to detain, whether or not they have actual charges." Like, y'know, how 26 of the 119 people detained by the CIA turned out to have been falsely detained, and a couple of them were subjected to torture. But hey, I'm sure if you suspect someone is an enemy combatant hard enough, then they're an enemy combatant. And then you're justified in doing whatever you want to them because they're the bad guy. So you can strip them naked and hang them from walls, beat them, dunk their heads in water until they nearly drown, rape them (because that's what I'm gonna call it when you forcibly shove something up someone's ass), hell, you can have them freeze to death for shits and giggles. Because you can use tenuous justifications for anything you do, and that completely covers up your obvious sadism.

Fun fact: Two people were imprisoned and tortured, but ultimately it turned out they were innocent. What led the CIA to them, you ask? The testimony of another prisoner, who gave false information about them after being tortured. But nah, guys, torture's totally a legit way of getting information. And by claiming that the multiple people and investigators saying it don't fucking work are just biased, I don't actually have to admit to facts. Instead I'll just trust the opinions of scumbags like Cheney and the very CIA people who are covering their asses because they don't want their dirty little secrets brought to light.

"The Committee reviewed CIA records related to several CIA officers and contractors involved in the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, most of whom conducted interrogations. The Committee identified a number of personnel whose backgrounds include notable derogatory information calling into question their eligibility for employment, their access to classified information, and their participation in CIA interrogation activities. In nearly all cases, the derogatory information was known to the CIA prior to the assignment of the CIA officers to the Detention and Interrogation Program. This group of officers included individuals who, among other issues, had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues, and had reportedly admitted to sexual assault."

I edited the previous post to correct it. Sexual assault, rape, not the most meaningful of distinctions.

I'm under the impression that most rape cases don't place an emphasis on what the accused was feeling at the time of the crime.

But okay. I won't call it rape. I'll call it "these CIA interrogators are evil, depraved fucks." That's more to the point.

Actually, come to think of it, according to the report, some of the people who were interrogates were rapists. Or at least sexual assaulters.