In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 15 2014 05:26 oneofthem wrote: seems like those early iraq prisons were nice terrorist get together conferences. wonder if they use LinkedIn
BLADENBORO, N.C. — The hanging death of a 17-year-old black male here has stirred up old fears and fresh concern as residents raise doubts about whether authorities, who called the teen’s death a suicide, adequately investigated the possibility this might have been, in fact, a lynching.
On Saturday, protesters marched through the heart of town to call for a thorough examination of what happened to Lennon Lacy, who was found hanging by two belts from a playground swing set near his home Aug. 29. The case had appeared to stall for months, but in recent days the demand for answers and suspicions that local authorities allowed the case to founder have grown. It was announced Friday that the FBI would look into the case.
“We know it was a hanging,” NAACP state chapter president the Rev. William Barber II said before Saturday’s march. “But the question is, ‘Was it self-inflicted? Was it a staged hanging? Or was it a hanging or lynching homicide?’ ”
The state NAACP launched its own investigation, including hiring an independent pathologist to review the state’s examination. The NAACP said several details raised questions about how the police investigation was conducted and how the finding of suicide was reached. Lacy, who was to start a new high school football season the day he died, was found hanging from a black belt and blue belt tied together — items that his mother said she did not recognize as his. She also said the Nike shoes her son had been wearing were missing. The NAACP said he was found wearing unfamiliar sneakers two sizes too small.
Before his death, Lacy had been dating a 31-year-old white woman who was a neighbor. Claudia Lacy said that her son told her about the relationship and that she did not approve of it. At some point, the couple broke up. The day before Lacy died, he had attended the funeral of his 78-year-old great-uncle. Claudia Lacy said her son was upset but not depressed.
She said he left their house about midnight for one of his usual training runs. He preferred running at night when the heat and humidity had eased. She next saw him about 7:30 a.m., when police called her to a wooden swing set about a quarter-mile from her home to identify her son’s body.
She noticed what she describes as scratches and abrasions on his face, and there was a knot on his forehead that hadn’t been there the day before. In a photograph taken of Lacy’s body lying in the casket, a lump is visible on his forehead above his right eye. “From that point on it was just not real, like walking through a dream,” she said.
Image of where he was found, there were allegedly no witnesses. It's hard to say for sure but reports indicate he was hanging from the swing set in the middle (not the one with a platform)
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I can only say two things about Dick Cheney, both critical. First, he says that he did not read the report, and it remains unclear how much he actually knew and knows about what the CIA was doing, so he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Second, I find it bizarre to work through the morality of this in the dimension of its effectiveness. Like if torture is effective, that makes it less immoral? It is especially troubling since Cheney seems to be blurring the lines between whether he measures effectiveness by the intelligence gained from it or by the suffering inflicted upon a person who deserves to be punished.
It was one thing to argue that it was legal, that these interrogation methods were harsh and brutal but within the legal confines of what White House lawyers judged to not be torture. But going with a "I'd rather punish innocent people than let guilty people go free" is an unacceptable argument unless we're being brutally, amorally pragmatic. Which is a place that I think many Americans would be surprised and astonished to find government agents have regularly gone and perhaps still do for justification.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I can only say two things about Dick Cheney, both critical. First, he says that he did not read the report, and it remains unclear how much he actually knew and knows about what the CIA was doing, so he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Second, I find it bizarre to work through the morality of this in the dimension of its effectiveness. Like if torture is effective, that makes it less immoral? It is especially troubling since Cheney seems to be blurring the lines between whether he measures effectiveness by the intelligence gained from it or by the suffering inflicted upon a person who deserves to be punished.
It was one thing to argue that it was legal, that these interrogation methods were harsh and brutal but within the legal confines of what White House lawyers judged to not be torture. But going with a "I'd rather punish innocent people than let guilty people go free" is an unacceptable argument unless we're being brutally, amorally pragmatic. Which is a place that I think many Americans would be surprised and astonished to find government agents have regularly gone and perhaps still do for justification.
I suppose it depends upon how you define "many." As far as I am concerned, a large number of Americans is under no delusion regarding what our government has been up to (even if the specifics are unknown) and accept it as pragmatic reality. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fighting wars along strict moral guidelines is stupid. War necessarily entails a certain degree of immoral atrocity, and that degree exceeds what our liberal idealists would like.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I can only say two things about Dick Cheney, both critical. First, he says that he did not read the report, and it remains unclear how much he actually knew and knows about what the CIA was doing, so he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Second, I find it bizarre to work through the morality of this in the dimension of its effectiveness. Like if torture is effective, that makes it less immoral? It is especially troubling since Cheney seems to be blurring the lines between whether he measures effectiveness by the intelligence gained from it or by the suffering inflicted upon a person who deserves to be punished.
It was one thing to argue that it was legal, that these interrogation methods were harsh and brutal but within the legal confines of what White House lawyers judged to not be torture. But going with a "I'd rather punish innocent people than let guilty people go free" is an unacceptable argument unless we're being brutally, amorally pragmatic. Which is a place that I think many Americans would be surprised and astonished to find government agents have regularly gone and perhaps still do for justification.
I suppose it depends upon how you define "many." As far as I am concerned, a large number of Americans is under no delusion regarding what our government has been up to (even if the specifics are unknown) and accept it as pragmatic reality. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fighting wars along strict moral guidelines is stupid. War necessarily entails a certain degree of immoral atrocity, and that degree exceeds what our liberal idealists would like.
"...fighting wars along strict moral guidelines is stupid. War necessarily entails a certain degree of immoral atrocity, and that degree exceeds what the west would like"
So what is your argument against our enemies using the same argument to rationalize their acts?
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I can only say two things about Dick Cheney, both critical. First, he says that he did not read the report, and it remains unclear how much he actually knew and knows about what the CIA was doing, so he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Second, I find it bizarre to work through the morality of this in the dimension of its effectiveness. Like if torture is effective, that makes it less immoral? It is especially troubling since Cheney seems to be blurring the lines between whether he measures effectiveness by the intelligence gained from it or by the suffering inflicted upon a person who deserves to be punished.
It was one thing to argue that it was legal, that these interrogation methods were harsh and brutal but within the legal confines of what White House lawyers judged to not be torture. But going with a "I'd rather punish innocent people than let guilty people go free" is an unacceptable argument unless we're being brutally, amorally pragmatic. Which is a place that I think many Americans would be surprised and astonished to find government agents have regularly gone and perhaps still do for justification.
I suppose it depends upon how you define "many." As far as I am concerned, a large number of Americans is under no delusion regarding what our government has been up to (even if the specifics are unknown) and accept it as pragmatic reality. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fighting wars along strict moral guidelines is stupid. War necessarily entails a certain degree of immoral atrocity, and that degree exceeds what our liberal idealists would like.
How many assfistings will America tolerate may be larger than liberal idealists expect, but the defense of the right of extreme government overreach is hilarious. Secret torture in 3rd world countries? Of course. Government healthcare? TYRANNY! I said it before and Ill say it again, Obama's dumbest mistake was not labeling everything 9/11 prevention Act.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
Richard Engel of NBC said it well,
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I can only say two things about Dick Cheney, both critical. First, he says that he did not read the report, and it remains unclear how much he actually knew and knows about what the CIA was doing, so he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Second, I find it bizarre to work through the morality of this in the dimension of its effectiveness. Like if torture is effective, that makes it less immoral? It is especially troubling since Cheney seems to be blurring the lines between whether he measures effectiveness by the intelligence gained from it or by the suffering inflicted upon a person who deserves to be punished.
It was one thing to argue that it was legal, that these interrogation methods were harsh and brutal but within the legal confines of what White House lawyers judged to not be torture. But going with a "I'd rather punish innocent people than let guilty people go free" is an unacceptable argument unless we're being brutally, amorally pragmatic. Which is a place that I think many Americans would be surprised and astonished to find government agents have regularly gone and perhaps still do for justification.
I suppose it depends upon how you define "many." As far as I am concerned, a large number of Americans is under no delusion regarding what our government has been up to (even if the specifics are unknown) and accept it as pragmatic reality. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fighting wars along strict moral guidelines is stupid. War necessarily entails a certain degree of immoral atrocity, and that degree exceeds what our liberal idealists would like.
How many assfistings will America tolerate may be larger than liberal idealists expect, but the defense of the right of extreme government overreach is hilarious. Secret torture in 3rd world countries? Of course. Government healthcare? TYRANNY! I said it before and Ill say it again, Obama's dumbest mistake was not labeling everything 9/11 prevention Act.
You know... you say it in jest but that might have actually made a difference.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
A key to sustainable business in every industry is creating a circular economy: What used to be considered waste is fed back into the production process as raw material. Factories are increasingly identifying "zero waste to landfill" as a goal, seeking new ways to recycle and repurpose their waste, and industry research looks at how to make products more recyclable. This focus is known as "product stewardship."
Some products, such as paper or aluminum products, can be recycled into new paper and aluminum products, but this is not always the case. For example, tire production includes a vulcanization process, similar to baking, and just as it isn't possible to take butter and flour out of an already baked cake, it is not possible to extract natural rubber or other ingredients out of a vulcanized tire. This means an old tire cannot really be converted to a raw material for a new tire.
Still, the tire industry has been called upon in many parts of the world to take responsibility for disposal and recycling of discarded tires including removal of tire stockpiles. In the US, market-based solutions have emerged.
Today, around 95 percent of tires too worn to use are repurposed for other applications. Of these, 56 percent become tire-derived fuel, a substitute for coal and other fuels commonly used in cement kilns, pulp and paper mills, and for electricity generation. 25 percent of scrap tires are repurposed for ground rubber applications, including rubberized asphalt, artificial turf fields and playground surfaces. Rubberized asphalt lasts longer than ordinary asphalt, and has properties such as noise control, erosion prevention and better drainage. Another 5 percent are used in civil engineering applications.
In 1990 there were around one billion stockpiled tires in the US; by 2013 that number had fallen by 92 percent.+ Show Spoiler +
Many of these new markets got off the ground with the help of state incentives. The state would give grants for market development and stockpile abatement, funded by a small fee paid by the consumer dropping off her old tires at the dealer when replacing them with new tires. Another part of the consumer's small fee (usually between one and three dollars) would go to a scrap tire collector, who would cart the old tires to processors en route to the end use markets. Much of the new market development was stimulated by representatives of tire manufacturers, who have held conferences, set up meetings with states, and put processors in touch with companies that could use the ground up tires. In the case of rubberized asphalt, the new product is ready for use but often local governments won't spend the extra money up front for pavement that will last longer, even if they would save money long-term by having to repave less often. This is an open opportunity for financing solutions.
The hope is that with a boost from technology innovation and financing solutions, scrap tires could become so valuable as a raw material for other uses that people will be willing to pay handsomely for them.
All this is an example of the direction needed in order to create a circular economy approach to waste. Manufacturers of any product need to focus on ways to produce the product so that it is more recyclable, and new markets for recycled products can be developed strategically. Technology can fill in the gaps.
A suggestion for entrepreneurs looking for markets to fill: look at the waste cycle of any product. Find the weak links in the circle, and identify cost-effective solutions. Customers will be lining up.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
Say he is libertarian.... Defend state in a torture scandal.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
Say he is libertarian.... Defend state in a torture scandal.
when you are commited to one side this hard, the lines blur. especially wearing rose coloured glasses.
//edit: how about standing with the troops by giving them meaningful jobs - as in have a plan why they go in and have a long term strategy or rough estimation when to pull out? you know, solving conflicts where there is feeling they do something good in the world.
not endless ones, where they come home broken and get shat on by the labour market and insufficient PTSD treatment by the same entity that sent them through the meatgrinder in the first place.
you know, actually standing by the troops. not some bullshit chickenhawk version of patriotism.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
Have you ever thought about an alternative universe where little Danglars was born in and grew up in a poor Sunni household in Iraq? A Danglars who was a fervent adherent of Islam and a believer in Allah? Have you ever thought about how such a Danglars would respond to 9/11? To the invasion of Iraq? To the rise of ISIS? The kinds of sentiments that you are expressing in this post seem very similar to the sentiments and values that fuel jihadis.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
Have you ever thought about an alternative universe where little Danglars was born in and grew up in a poor Sunni household in Iraq? A Danglars who was a fervent adherent of Islam and a believer in Allah? Have you ever thought about how such a Danglars would respond to 9/11? To the invasion of Iraq? To the rise of ISIS? The kinds of sentiments that you are expressing in this post seem very similar to the sentiments and values that fuel jihadis.
We're all free, so the sunni kid in Iraq have the freedom of choice to put the bombings aside and come live the american dream and make big money. It's a question of determination.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
Have you ever thought about an alternative universe where little Danglars was born in and grew up in a poor Sunni household in Iraq? A Danglars who was a fervent adherent of Islam and a believer in Allah? Have you ever thought about how such a Danglars would respond to 9/11? To the invasion of Iraq? To the rise of ISIS? The kinds of sentiments that you are expressing in this post seem very similar to the sentiments and values that fuel jihadis.
On December 15 2014 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dick Cheney is just an awful human being.
Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.
"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.
"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.
About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."
I for one am glad for people like Cheney that don't mince words about the effectiveness of interrogation to conform to modern fashions. Beyond that, I too would be appalled at released captives returning to fight American soldiers--fight the very same force that succeeded in the original capturing. At least his conscience can be clear that they did employ means at their disposal to glean valuable intelligence to help our soldiers in the fight. I can't say the same about the current crop of moralizing hypocrites. Their loyalties are decidedly on the pursuit of political power through leveraging biased reports, and not with the troops. These CIA heroes, currently cast as scapegoats, deserve medals of freedom for quickly exposing al Qaeda networks and saving lives after 9/11.
When you look back, how are you going to remember this? Is it going to be remembered as the period in which the CIA, in secret while lying to the political leadership, beat some people to death and did horrible things and didn’t get any results, which is what today’s report is suggesting, or was it a period when the country was very nervous, the CIA was asked to do these horrible things, the practice stopped, and then you have the political leadership pretending that it didn’t know anything and trying to wash its hands of the problem.
I wonder. To the best of our knowledge the CIA torture program was almost completely ineffective. Why do you persist in asserting the opposite? I agree with Engel on one thing. The political leadership is trying to absolve themselves of responsibility by pretending they didn't know anything. Cheney, Bush, Yoo and co. should indeed be indicted for their crimes along with the CIA torturers.
One other thing: If one really cares about the troops it is a good idea to not send tem off to fight neo-colonial wars within some sectarian hotbed or other.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Akdlel6.jpg)
