Pete, replying to you here is feeling way too much like talking someone down off a ledge. Between that and the simple fact I wasn't getting enough actual work done, I tried to bow out.
I asked you a question. You told me (I think) it was answered in the part I clipped out. I assume you mean the part within the same post by you which contained part of scifi’s quote and your response to it. I assume you mean the answer to my question is buried in this quote. If so, I’m blind or can’t make sense of it.
It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.
Or the fact that the federal government has used it's funds to strong arm private institutions into setting up these Kangaroo courts.
The fact that there are no criminal charges does not change the fact that the government is directing these operations therefore when to say constitutional argument does not apply sounds exactly like the Bush admin and Clinton admin's defense for RENDERING processes to foreign government so America doesn't get hands dirty.
I would like you to connect the dots. The first sentence seems unambiguous. You took what scifi said, ran it through your brain and out popped that sentence. That’s what it sounded like to you. The second and third sentences are accusations that the events were either the desired outcome or at least a conspiracy or bureaucratic *censored*show. To coin a phrase from the article. Either way, none of that can be extrapolated (by me at least) from what scifi posted.
If you are INSTEAD reaching those conclusion based upon some piece of the article you linked to rather than the quoted post by scifi, fine. My confusion is addressed. Note, I don’t even try to correct the sentiment you express, lest you assume I do by this reply… Though I do think it is needlessly hyperbolic.