You are conflating two things that I have claimed. One: the US has executed people for torture, including for many of the same practices that the CIA has been using. Two: some of the CIA's practices constitute rape. The first claim is true: both German and Japanese personnel were executed after WW2 for practices like waterboarding, stress positioning, extended submersion in cold water, beating, etc. The second claim, that the excessively forceful rectal exams and the truly abominable "rectal feeding" practices constitute rape could be a point of contention, but your characterization of what I've said is simply reducing my claim to the absurd.

The report cites at least two instances of "rectal exams conducted with 'excessive force'," in addition with the use of "rectal feeding" or "rectal rehydration" as a means of exerting "total control over the detainee." One can quibble over whether such practices constitute rape, but legally speaking when something is forcibly inserted into someone's anus without their consent, that can reasonably be considered rape.

Some of the techniques that have been revealed in this report include rape, beating, immersion in freezing water for long periods, forced holding of stress positions (including forcing people with broken legs and feet to stand for hours), extreme sleep deprivation. Victims of the CIA torture regime were often innocent, and some died. The US government in the past has had a legal remedy for the perpetrators of these torture methods: the death penalty.

It's true that spying is not inherently bad, but the NSA's foreign spying activities have also strayed into "bad" territory just as their domestic spying has (for example, spying on allies for economic advantage is probably fair to call "bad").

That doesn't mean we're obligated to help them gain legitimacy by volunteering to use the name they want us to. Their goal is to be seen as a legitimate state representing all Muslims. They aren't and they don't. Also, "daesh" pisses them off, which should give all decent folk a twinge of slightly immature pleasure.

Do a google search for her account without being logged in. You'll get to her twitter page, and it will look exactly like it did in that screenshot. If she (or someone else) saw an incoming stream of creepy/threatening tweets at her, logged out to avoid having their information on screen, hit f5 to refresh and display the most recent messages, then took a screenshot, they would end up with...exactly that screenshot. That is a much simpler explanation than that weird ranty jpeg presents as a smoking gun.

You compared the "analysis" on this jpeg to Loose Change, and I think that's pretty apt. The fact that people are so quick to latch onto this incredibly specious reasoning is really telling. Like, who the fuck cares if the person screenshotting it isn't signed in? You know what happens if I google "Anita Sarkeesian twitter"? I get her damn twitter page, exactly as it looks in that jpeg. You know what happens if I have that page up and hit F5 right after someone tweets something? I get that new tweet on my screen. This is not rocket-science level reasoning, it's plain, simple, and obvious. MS painting "look! it says this post is from 12 seconds ago!!!" on a screenshotand calling it a smoking gun isn't rock solid evidence, it's pants-shittingly stupid.

Lack of guns has *correlated* with fewer murders. However, murder rates have fallen across the developed world over the same period, with or without guns.