Eveverything

In July 2013 I tweeted "Have people who think #Yeezus is the record of the year ever listened to @KillerMikeGTO?" And Killer Mike responded "naw they ain't"

Where's your favorite park/ truck stop to go cruising?

As a fan of his podcast, I think he's calmed down significantly since then, and would be much more receptive to a conversation with you and/ or other astronomers (he loves NdGT). I also think he's less married to anti-science/ conspiracies/ etc nowadays. I bet he'd be open to having you on the show for a calm conversation if you're so inclined.

Hello, I'm an attorney myself, but in a completely different field of law. I am far from an expert, but this is my theory about why the Guantanamo is the way it is, please let me know if you think it's realistic?

In a normal trial, all of the ways that law enforcement collects evidence and treats the suspect after arrest are extremely important to the outcome of the trial- if the prosecutor can't establish that the defendant was treated properly, or that the proper chain of custody for all evidence was respected, the defendant very well might walk. If the police are overly coercive or step over the line in some way, the defendant should be found not guilty. In the Guantanamo cases, it seems like all of that would be out the window. Many if not all of these people have been tortured, and they have all had their right to a speedy and fair trial severely impinged, coming to trial more than a decade after their arrest. I think that the CIA agents (or whoever) who arrested or interrogated the suspects still in Guantanamo have good reason to believe that the people in custody did something that gave real support to terrorism. Or they wrote a report over a decade ago with a note that says that Suspect X (for example your client) was captured in a scenario making him likely connected to Al Qaeda, or that he had a note in his pocket with an important phone number, or somebody else in Afghanistan named him as a key figure.

So we'd have a situation where Obama or whoever is in charge thinks 1) if the defendant is tried in a civilian court, they will be found not guilty based on the many ways these suspects and cases have been mishandled BUT 2) this guy probably did something and it would be a PR nightmare if he was on the news next year as a terror suspect in a new incident so we are going to do this screwy military system to try and reclaim our dignity somewhat.

I haven't heard this in the mainstream narrative about Guantanamo, does this sound right to you?