US Dismantles Forensic Science Commission (washingtonpost.com) 281
hondo77 writes a report via Washington Post: Thought the Trump Administration's war on science was just about climate change? Think again. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question, saying a new strategy will be set by an in-house team of law enforcement advisers," reports Washington Post. The National Commission on Forensic Science, "jointly led by Justice and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has prompted several changes," including "new accrediting and ethical codes for forensic labs and practitioners" and the FBI abandoning "its four-decade-long practice of tracing bullets to a specific manufacturer's batch through chemical analyses after its method were scientifically debunked." "The availability of prompt and accurate forensic science analysis to our law enforcement officers and prosecutors is critical to integrity in law enforcement, reducing violent crime, and increasing public safety," Sessions said in the statement. "We applaud the professionalism of the National Commission on Forensic Science and look forward to building on the contributions it has made in this crucial field."
I can't post the title without flaming (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At this rate, I can only assume that next week, the GOP will announce that the official guidelines for miles, pounds, feet, and gallons are "too restrictive to business" and the new standard for how much gas will
Re:I can't post the title without flaming (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. Who the fuck was calling for lowered standards in forensic science?
Private prisons. They lobby for anything that results in higher and longer incarceration rates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re:I can't post the title without flaming (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the flip side of this. It's also about making sure there's enough "play" in the forensics to convict someone innocent or exonerate someone corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the flip side of this. It's also about making sure there's enough "play" in the forensics to convict someone innocent or exonerate someone corrupt.
Translation: "Yeah, 2 + 2 = 4, but we feel it needs some flexibility to provide an answer anywhere between 3.5 and 6."
As if destroying the advances we've made in forensic science makes any fucking sense whatsoever...
Fuck the lobbyists and their corrupt justifications. Actions like this make it obvious who actually needs to be punished. Pretty fucking sad we have people who are proud to bolster the label of Incarcerated States of America.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Who the fuck was calling for lowered standards in forensic science?
Private prisons. They lobby for anything that results in higher and longer incarceration rates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing about business models that can only "grow" only by crossing the ethical line. Fuck private prisons and their reasons to destroy the advances we've made in forensic science. You want profits? Then create business that benefits members of society instead of finding more creative ways to imprison them. If this kind of bullshit lobbying continues, you'll be behind bars for jaywalking, because it helps feed someone's bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people who are under investigation for some shady shit?
Basic liberals propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
No this is just some biased news reporting as usual.
From the article:
In a statement Monday, Sessions said he would not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science, a roughly 30-member advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013.
First, they do not "dismantle" the commission, they just don't renew its mandate. Second, it was a mostly idle project launched 4 years ago by Obama, it's not a long-standing institution of law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Must you introduce article reading and facts into this?
Re: (Score:2)
I first had a quick look at the members of that commission. When I saw that one was in the "National College of DUI Defense" and another was on the board of a foundation that "seeks to reduce over-incarceration", I kinda suspected that the output of that commission would not be new gadgets for CSI Miami, but rather a long list of things the cops shouldn't be allowed to use in court.
Re:Basic liberals propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
Like
- bad arson science (see the Willingham case)
- unsupported bite-mark evidence (see the Krone case)
- stating that fingerprints are absolutely unique (see the Mayfield case).
What's wrong with requiring techniques used to court to be supported by evidence that they work?
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with requiring techniques used to court to be supported by evidence that they work?
Hold on, let me ask the commission on requirements to see if they think that there is anything wrong with them supporting the commission on evidence.
You will have to wait tho, as there are currently real commissions authorized by congress in session.
Re: (Score:2)
no (Score:2)
I'm not pro-law enforcement at all. The point here is that calling the end of this commission "war on science" is, at best. dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there something that the commission hasn't taken a position on that they should have? If not, they are no longer needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there something that the commission hasn't taken a position on that they should have? If not, they are no longer needed.
Did you bother to parse your own claim before you posted? Or did you just try to bullshit your way through this?
Re: (Score:2)
I first had a quick look at the members of that commission. When I saw that one was in the "National College of DUI Defense" and another was on the board of a foundation that "seeks to reduce over-incarceration", I kinda suspected that the output of that commission would not be new gadgets for CSI Miami, but rather a long list of things the cops shouldn't be allowed to use in court.
So? And the fact that one of the co-chairs is "a Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)", one member is " elected Sheriff of St. Charles Parish", one is " Division Director (civilian Chief) for the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department’s Technology and Support Division." (which comes up to three, one more than the two you listed) somehow didn't give you the impression that law enforcement personnel dominates that panel because...? And I was too bored to search for
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways. Don't call it "war on science" when the commission is not renewed, while most the commission recommendations are about giving ammunition to the defense.
For instance, this one recommendation about the terms "Reasonable Scientific Certainty”:
The Attorney General should direct all forensic science service providers and forensic science medical providers employed by Department of Justice not to
use such language in reports or couch their testimony in such terms unless directed to do so by judicial authority
Basically they're trying to limit what the expert witnesses for the prosecution can say. Those people are not scientists, they're defense lobbyists.
Re: Basic liberals propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they're trying to limit what the expert witnesses for the prosecution can say. Those people are not scientists, they're defense lobbyists.
The courts have always limited what expert witnesses could say. It's called "Admissibility."
Start with Frye v. United States, which applied to a criminal case, where the Supreme Court ruled that lie detector tests couldn't be admitted as evidence because there was no scientific evidence for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That was superseded by Daubert, a civil case, where the judge decided to throw out evidence of birth defects against a corporation,
Read the article again:
The issue here isn't whether the commission gets renewed. The issue here is that this is a prosecutor's wish list to keep giving juries unproven and disproven "scientific" evidence with the authority of "FBI agents."
These prosecutors are the same ones who ( while they smoke cigarettes) insist that marijuana is so dangerous that users should go to jail.
They want to be free to use bullshit evidence because that way they can get convictions, and advance their careers, whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. DNA testing exposed that whole fraud.
At one time there were intelligent, principled conservatives who understood logic and science, and were even committed to justice, not convictions, and sometimes the weight of the evidence would convince them to change their minds. There were also liberals like that.
Today, as Chris Mooney documented in The Republican War on Science, some of the Democrats are ignoring the scientific evidence, but almost all the Republicans have followed the Republican party line.
Think about it. The Trump administration rejects global warming, and hasn't even hired scientific advisers. How can they be competent to understand the scientific validity of criminal evidence?
Sadly, it's a waste of time to argue with you, because you have your position and I don't think any evidence would convince you. I'm writing this for the benefit of the other readers of Slashdot who want a better understanding of the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have always limited what expert witnesses could say. It's called "Admissibility."
Thats why we need a commission then, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Semantics. The end result is the same: no commission.
Re: (Score:3)
uhm, and "not renewing its mandate" does not equal "dismantling" it how?
Because they mean different things.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're the asshole debating the meaning of "is"?
I ask because "not renewing" sure seems to equal "dismantling"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bias? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
The commission jointly led by Justice and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has prompted several changes.
You:
mostly idle
Your bias is showing.
Those 30 people have made a total of 20 recommendations since 2013. Here's the latest one:
The Attorney General should direct the Bureau of Justice Statistics to create a proposal for the development of a nationally representative survey to determine forensic capabilities for those who write reports and offer testimony within federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies and for medical examiner and coroner offices. The survey instrument should be developed in collaboration with the relevant stakeholders organizations by the next commission meeting.
1/2 page.
You want more? Here's the 2nd latest recommendation, made ONE YEAR before.
Proficiency testing is required of all accredited FSSPs. As a recognized quality control tool, it is the view of the Commission that proficiency testing should also be implemented by nonaccredited FSSPs in disciplines where proficiency tests are available from external organizations.
That's it. The entire corpus of that immensely valuable recommendation spans 7 pages; of those 7 pages, 4 are an appendix describing terms like "Accreditation".
That commission is a big joke. See, there's a webcast of their meetings.
https://www.nist.gov/topics/fo... [nist.gov]
Huge waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
So we should measure the usefulness of government agencies by the volume of their output?
Or maybe we should look at what it took to make those recommendations and how good they are.
Re:bias? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok. Clearly you need more evidence, so why don't you look at the webcast of their meeting.
Fast-forward to 47:22, and see the lady asking the crowd to pick which cards should be turned over, and then she gets annoyed because nobody gives a shit about her triangles.
https://www.nist.gov/topics/fo... [nist.gov]
Tell me how that helps improving forensics science. This is merely a bunch of people having their 10 minutes of babbling on the record with zero value for the taxpayers.
Somehow I suspect that if that commission had been created by Republicans you'd be the first to denounce it.
research? wtf (Score:2)
Like most science opponents, your argument is that the research takes too long to bear fruit. Science doesn't happen overnight.
That's a commission. They don't do research.
Re: (Score:2)
The commission includes researchers, it doesn't do scientific research.
Re: (Score:2)
The commission includes researchers, it doesn't do scientific research.
Because unless they are in a lab wearing white coats, they are not. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
The commission itself voted 16-15 to recommend it not be renewed.
It's not exactly gerrymandering but it's certainly a case of packing the commision with friendly faces. You think it's ok to dismantle the EPA because the current head wants to do so?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it might just be political. The commission was established by Democrats, under Obama. Trump, as a Republican, is almost obliged to tear down anything that Democrats were responsible for.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Who the fuck was calling for lowered standards in forensic science?
Prosecutors.
It's much easier to get convictions when you can make up proof of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck was calling for lowered standards in forensic science?
The commission itself. Do you have any idea what kind of malarkey passes as "forensic science" when they want to convict someone?
Re: (Score:2)
So "measured" that the base that was attacked was back to normal operations on the same day.
I don't think "strong" is the word. "Dramatic" maybe. I think you are describing a warning shot badly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades
Not just illegal immigration, people are avoiding traveling to the US in general (Interest in travel to the US has "fallen off a cliff" since Donald Trump’s election - https://www.theguardian.com/tr... [theguardian.com]) Good! There are enough people here, we don’t need anymore, we’ll make that tourist money up in other ways. Silicon valley tech companies are avoiding letting employees travel to outside the US for fear they won’t be able to get back in. Good! show them with actions it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are the epitome of why your side got murdered this election;
Wait so something about chicken plants is why the dems lost due to an artefact of the election system despite getting a lot more votes?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now all of a sudden you think its, and I quote, "Unconstitutional and Unwise" to bomb Syria.
The other guy has it right. Your attitude is exactly why the Democrats got murdered last election.
You can sit there cherry picking all the things that you have an issue with on a daily basis, but that falls apart when you arent consistent. A politician can get away with some flip-flopping, but you guys are all over the place constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His administration hasn't had much of an effect, the fact that he was elected president on a platform of slowing illegal immigration and reducing regulation has had a profound effect. People are reacting to what they think he will do, not what he has done.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ashamed to be on the same planet, actually. What the heck is going on with you folks? Whatever happened to "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". (I admit I have no idea what the American Way is, maybe it's "the other thing") ...
So let me see if I have this right
The new incoming administration is trying to reduce the accuracy of evidence checking.
The only reason I can think of is to hurry up and send the kind of people that end up in court to jail. Actual guilt is no longer relevant. Just "round up the
Re: (Score:2)
We are copycats so what you are happy to have left behind will catch up.
For example, a few years ago a migrant from the US said one little thing that made him happy was that a park would just have a sign with the name of the park instead of a long list of what was prohibited. Well, we decided to copy ambulance-chasing lawsuits and those parks now have the long lists. We even copied the Enron-era Cali
Re: (Score:2)
Why exactly are we paying each $100K/year to 30 people
That is serious money. Almost enough to cover the security for Trump's next weekend jaunt to Florida.
Kangaroo Courts (Score:2)
How can we even speak of reform, when the hands of every judge in the Empire are soaked and dripping with blood?
Hillbillies, right wing conspiracy theorists (Score:3, Insightful)
and two-bit crooked real estate salesmen are now running the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because some no-shoes wearing, Oxycontin-addicted, uncle-fucker waiting for his coal job to come back so he can pay for his black lung treatments voted for Forrest Trump doesn't mean you should use a slur like, "hillbilly".
So much for the "Tolerant Left", I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. I was going to refer to Trump supporters as "cocksuckers", but at least a cocksucker is good for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now, many of them do suck cocks:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/a-... [cracked.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From across the pond, the difference to earlier times is really hard to see.
Wrong, the parents are home (Score:2)
The commission did nothing that people actually used. Talk about two-bit crooks, what about the people that got paid taxpayer money to do nothing worthwhile?
The people that are running the government now are adults, absent after a long departure and pissed off at the way the country has been trashed.
statement from NDAA (Score:5, Informative)
Statement from National District Attorney Association
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20Statement%20on%20Expiration%20of%20National%20Commission%20on%20Forensic%20Science.pdf [ndaa.org]
The Commission lacked adequate representation from the state and local practitioner community,
was dominated by the defense community, and failed to produce work products of significance for
the forensic science community. Very few of the recommendations from the Commission were
adopted and signed by the previous Attorney General during its existence. Those that were signed,
such as universal accreditation, had already begun to develop organically within the forensic science
community as accepted best practices, thus replicating ongoing work and wasting taxpayer dollars.
Learning the hard way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real lesson here is that people should avoid making dramatic statements when it's not warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time not knowing a culture, language, mentality, people of a country makes an effort of a regime change from outside often unpredictable and counterproductive.
fake news (Score:5, Informative)
Sessions isn't "dismantling" anything. The commission was created in 2013 and was supposed to do its job by 2017. It apparently has done that, Sessions has thanked them. The Trump administration is now deciding what to do next.
Calling this "ordering the Justice Dept. to end forensic science commission" or "dismantling forensic science commission", as if Trump or Sessions had taken extraordinary steps to kill the commission, is tendentious, politically motivated b.s. that reflects badly on the Washington Post and the submitter.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Technically correct; the article notes the commission's term ends April 23rd. But what's the case for ending it?
As the article also notes:
"In suspending reviews of past testimony and the development of standards for future reporting, “the department has literally decided to suspend the search for the truth,” said Peter S. Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which has reported that nearly half of 349 DNA exonerations involved misapplications of forensic science."
There's verifiable evide
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an argument for ending the commission. That's an argument for replacing the members interfering with its function.
Or they could end the commission and create a new committee that has a similar function with a more balanced point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Sessions isn't "dismantling" anything. The commission was created in 2013 and was supposed to do its job by 2017. It apparently has done that, Sessions has thanked them. The Trump administration is now deciding what to do next.
Calling this "ordering the Justice Dept. to end forensic science commission" or "dismantling forensic science commission", as if Trump or Sessions had taken extraordinary steps to kill the commission, is tendentious, politically motivated b.s. that reflects badly on the Washington Post and the submitter.
Errrm. Yes, and, no, and no, and no. Yes, it was created in 2013 and yes, it was due for termination in 2017. But that would be it's second termination after its first renewal, and there was supposed to be a another renewal hearing. https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/624216/download [justice.gov]
11. Termination:
The Commission's termination date is two years from the date this Charter is filed with Congress, and is subject to renewal in accordance with Section 14 of FACA.
And more importantly: it wasn't "supposed to do its job by 2017". The charter clearly says: "10. Duration: The period of time necessary for the Commission to carry out its purpose is indefinite"
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, you marked me foe some time back because I wrote something critical of one of your little cheerleading pieces on Trump after the end of the primaries.
Probably, but in comparison to the teabaggers they are as sober as Judges.
Re: (Score:3)
I have marked you a foe because I think you are are an idiot and have been for as long as I have been on Slashdot (likely longer than you). "Foe" is a holdover from the time when marking people as such actually let you downrank them out of existence so you wouldn't see their crap at all (a feature that has sadly disappeared).
As for Trump, when I say
Re: (Score:2)
Because, if you know anything about history, you'd realize that elections actually matter. Politicians are all dickheads (it takes a pathological desire for power to choose to be a politician), but some of those dickheads turn your country in fascist dictatorships, others into socialist states, and others keep things mostly going along. Just ask the people of Germany, Italy, or Venezuela.
cosby said it (Score:2)
Mama does not want justice. She wants QUIET.
Put another way--the courts need only dispense sufficient justice that most of us STFU and GBTW.
Political hype (Score:2)
"set to expire"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru... [pbs.org] (April 10, 2017) "The department will instead appoint an in-house adviser and create an internal committee to study improvements to forensic analysis, Sessions said."
Say what? (Score:2)
Fine (Score:2)
Yes, when you're $19 trillion in debt, you have to forego some luxury items.
NDAA Applauds Expiration of National Commission (Score:2)
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
Date: April 10, 2017
National District Attorneys Association Applauds Expiration of National Commission on Forensic Science
ARLINGTON, Virginia – The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA)
supports the announcement this morning by United States Attorney General
Jeff Sessions that he will not renew the charter for the National
Commission on Forensic Science, allowing the Commission to officially
expire. NDAA also appreciates the creation of a Subcommittee on
F
We HAVE to start cutting programs... (Score:3)
Last fiscal year, the US Federal Government spent $1.423 trillion more than it brought in (source: US Department of Treasury [treasurydirect.gov]). There are approximately 140 million taxpayers [taxfoundation.org]. This represents a DEFICIT spending $10,160 per taxpayer - spending above and beyond income. It is more than all the Federal Income tax paid! We would have to literally more than double the current Federal tax rate for all taxpayers to cover our deficit spending...
Or, we start cutting things that are outside the domain of the Federal Government, and scale back on spending. It's either increase revenue or cut spending - but it has to be done. We cannot keep blowing over $4 billion dollars a day in deficit spending (that is $29 per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, per taxpayer).
And Stone and Kushner and Flynn (Score:5, Interesting)
And Stone coordinating his campaign with hacker Guccifer, Manasfort? Millions of dollars putting Putin agents in power in democracies.
Even Kushner sneaked the Russian ambassador into Trump tower, shortly followed by a director of VneshEconomBank (a Putin controlled bank previously known for bailing out Putin projects and funding legal defenses of Russian spies)... but it's all innocent, VneshEconomBank says it was just a commercial meeting regarding Kushners property interests (which would be an illegal violation of sanctions). Kushner says its totally innocent meeting with VneshEconomBank in his role as temporary acting State Dept, making connections to Putin. (i.e. he's totally aware the bank is a Putin front!). Neither story adds up.
Perhaps you think I'm kidding, but no, this is sadly true:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/kushner-meeting-russian-banker-tied-to-putin/index.html
Flynn? Secret meetings with Russian ambassadors, was to have fulfilled Putin's promise to Erdogan on extraditing a US cleric to Turkey. The go-to man for the smaller deals.
But I think you're rather missing the bigger picture. Look at their recent earnings declarations. Kushner is claimed to have assets of 750 million, yet income of 100k. That doesn't make sense. When I dig through their public accounts none of the numbers add up. They are 2 orders of magnitude out of best estimates. Trump still hasn't release his tax returns, only leaking a two page sheet from 2005, which was probably the last time the numbers looks plausible.
So Trump is a conman, and he'll take apart forensics, he'll take apart accounting standards bodies, he'll undermine ethics groups. It's not that Trump is some string puppet of Putin's. It's more that he's a crook, and Putin is a fellow crook, and there is a mutual interest.
Look at the raid in Syria. Russian was pre-informed about it, they in turn warned Assad, all the fighter jets were removed, there were two helicopters placed in the center of the runways for the photo-op, but those helicopters aren't normally parked blocking a runway! Trump blows up some tarmac and some concrete. Who the fuck would do that? Why would you do that? You know there will be zero useful assets to destroy if you inform Putin, yet you inform Putin.
Re: And Stone and Kushner and Flynn (Score:2)
While I do agree with the thrust of what your saying. There was a high likelyhood of Russian soldiers being at that base , so calling the Russians seems fairly prudent in terms of "let's not start thermonuclear world war 3"
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. I'm a little surprised the hive mind here is promoting these kinds of wild conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is there to believe?
It's public knowledge that Trump advisor Carter Page is a Russian secret agent.
So treasonous... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OH yes, the Washington Post, bastion of truthful and unbiased journalism. Right up there with Salon and Mother Jones.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"What type of moron believe's this narrative? "
The type that presses the apostrophe key the instant he sees the letter s?
Re:Trump Advisor Carter Page - Russian Agent (Score:5, Insightful)
For Trump supporters and most Republicans, it's always Trump/party before country. No matter what issue.
Re:Trump Advisor Carter Page - Russian Agent (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't leave the Democrats out of this grouping, they're just as much party/anti-Trump before country.
Re: (Score:3)
There, FTFY. See, both parties are the same in that regard. It's because in order to become a party member, you really have to be a believer that your party holds the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of your feelings on our institutions, it's clear that both parties will abuse or subvert them wh
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth considering that much of the American right sees Russia as a friendly country with common interests. They're socially ultra-conservative, highly capitalist, authoritarian, militarily adventurous, heavily invested into fossil fuels, and overwhelmingly white. These are all upsides to all but the most moderate of today's American right.
To them, the issue of Russian interference is a minor issue that they'd like to downplay because it gave good results. How upset do you think the left would be i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trump Advisor Carter Page - Russian Agent (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That is "Mr. Putin" to you! :)
Re:Fake news (Score:4, Interesting)
I declare this news as fake, on the grounds it's too absurd to be real. Please let this be fake.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Hey! Quit bringing up facts...and...logic...and...stuff!
This is *Slashdot*!! Ain't nobody got time for that!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm not convinced that President Trump came along and said, "Yeah, I hate that commission, let's get rid of it!" He, like 99.9% of you here on Slashdot, likely didn't know it existed. The President does not typically operate at such a low level in the government. That's for your cabinet and department heads to handle.
It's far more likely that the FBI et al. decided that it was a waste of time and resources (as many commissions are), and that they would be better off putting their resources elsewhere.
Back to divination (Score:5, Funny)
IN unrelated news the FBI formed a Divination unit that applies forensic goat entrails reading to predict future crimes. Jeff sessions was quoted as saying, "Liberal Judges have long prevented the proven science of witch drowning as a standard of guilt. Everyone knows Witches float, it's so simple to prevent occult crimes. Now we can."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This suggestion is hillarious. Instead of Russian cronies, you prefer a crone?
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it is physically possible to *find out* what a program *actually does*.
In this case your post is ironic because we're talking about a program which debunks faith in stuff just because it's called "science".
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the article and the links posted by those people you bitch about? That commission was doing nothing, it was a defense lawyer gangbang, and it was started 4 years ago by Obama as a bullshit program to meet actions points identified by yet another commission. And it's not "dismantled", they just don't see a point to renew it since it's done nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most didn't but "Disagreements between crime lab practitioners and defense community representatives on the commission had reduced it to 'a think tank,' yielding few accomplishments and wasted tax dollars" did.
Of course that's what the people say who have the most to lose from good scientific forensics: prosecutors out for an easy conviction, actual guilt optional.
tinfoil hat time (Score:2)
Is that the go to talking point being spread around The Donald? I see the exact same comment made elsewhere in this thread.
I see. When two people make similar comments that do not support your preconceived opinion, it's a conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get paid posting here.
Just don't tell my boss that I am, ok?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, and evolution is just a theory...
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's law is in full effect here, I really can't tell if you're serious.