don't virtually all progressives and Democrats argue that torture produces unreliable evidence? If it's really true (as Obama defenders claim) that the evidence we have against these detainees was obtained by torture and is therefore inadmissible in real courts, do you really think such unreliable evidence -- evidence we obtained by torture -- should be the basis for concluding that someone is so "dangerous" that they belong in prison indefinitely with no trial? If you don't trust evidence obtained by torture, why do you trust it to justify holding someone forever, with no trial, as "dangerous"?
Unified Patents on 24 Jun 16On June 21, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) awarded adverse judgment against patent owner Qurio Holdings, Inc., prior to institution, cancelling claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 15-18 of U.S. Patent 7,787,904, as challenged via joinder by Unified in IPR2016-00998.
