Reading that... every single on of those people other than the victim is rotten all the way through.
Well.... the kid's mom sounds OK. (Yes, I know that's not what you meant.) They're appealing the conviction and planning a civil suit against the school district. Good. Or, at least, a good start.
They seriously need to look at removing this judge from the bench. In this parade of horrible authority figures, a judge who makes rulings on the basis of "Well, if they're in court, they must have done something" really manages to stand out. (We're used to idiotic behavior from principals, after all.)
ďThe single best thing that ever happened to Germany were the war crimes tribunals, because it forced Germany to come to its milk about what in fact has happened.Ē
I blame Joe Biden for Godwinizing this discussion before it even got started. When did he say that anyway? (I'm curious about context.) Also curious: "come to its milk"? Is that a Bidenism, or should I know what it means?
There's a particularly telling section on Page 15 of Judge Wright's ruling:
An exchange between the undercover agent and Defendants on January 30, 2013, compellingly demonstrates the economic pressures Defendants faced, exacerbated by the Government:
[Agent]: Yep, what do you always say, you ainít afraid of no money, right? [CI]: Yeah, I ainít afraid of no money. [Agent]: You ainít afraid of no cocaina are you? . . . Male: Hell yeah, it will change my life. . . . [Whitfield]: Sure, Iíll never be broke again. My kidís gonna be straight. . . . [Whitfield]: Iím gonna buy property and everything, probably like five or ten years down the line, but it will be right. (Oppín Ex. 2 at 45.)
With the Government dangling over $600,000 in front of clearly impoverished individuals, it is no surprise that they took the bait.
First, whether or not Senator Feinstein used the "torture" is a superficial detail not worth two paragraphs. She already said it was horrible.
It is not superficial. It matters. It matters because Senator Feinstein, like those who instituted and carried out this program, knew full well that calling this abuse by its true name could lead to public recrimination as well as, possibly (and certainly justifiably), to prosecution. It matters because they used twisted language like "enhance interrogation techniques" to cover up an illegal and immoral policy of systematic and deliberate brutality. And it matters because allowing them to get away with this makes us all complicit.
And as to your point about torture as a crime: The U.S. is a party to the Convention Against Torture. So, yes. It's a crime.
"When the 'Drink' button is pressed it makes an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's metabolism, and then sends tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centres of the subject's brain to see what is likely to be well received. However, no-one knows quite why it does this because it then invariably delivers a cupful of liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."
From the reports, GCHQ is concerned about its employees seeing and/or disseminating nudity/sexually-explicit material, in violation of policy. Apparently, nudity is offensive. (I find spying on 1.8 million Yahoo users webcam chats offensive, but maybe that's just me.)
Although, this does make me wonder. Since GCHQ is apparently trying to filter out the captured images to protect its employees from viewing peoples' naughty bits, could these revelations lead to a new policy for video communications involving actual bad guys? ... "I'd like to call this meeting to order. First up on the agenda: Everyone get naked."
the simple fact the person takes the time to show the distance between him and the officers, way before the altercation, clearly show, in my mind, he had little interest in what was happening, but instead, hoped to prove something different.
That the photographer was expecting the police to violate his constitutional rights does not justify their doing so.
He challenged the police officer to arrest him and was demeaning from the very start.
Being demeaning or impolite is not a crime, nor should it be.
There's a middle ground, in each situation and in this case, the responsability seems to fall on both.
No. Police are given tremendous authority over the public, and because of this they do have a higher burden of responsibility. ("With great power...") It is their job to exercise a sufficient level of self-control not to respond to verbal provocation with violence.
It's probably not entirely unreasonable to assume that just about all of them are "on the take" (at least in the sense that you mean), but that would be awfully cynical, and cynicism is one of the things the powers that be count on to maintain the status quo. Having the detailed information is helpful if we ever hope to do anything to fix this corruption of our democracy.