Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Jan 2010 18:40 On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:14:00 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Sure. And the definition of "lawful combatant" DOES appear in the 3th Geneva >Convention, Article 2(B) as one who wears a uniform, has a chain of command, >carries arms openly, and follows the rules of war. By extension, a >belligerent not meeting the requirements of "lawful combatant" is an >"unlawful" enemy combatant. So what if the Christmas Bomber had claimed that he didn't know who put the explosives in his underwear, and he was duped? Would that have made a difference? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 30 Jan 2010 18:58 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:40:10 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Suppose, just for the sake of exploring this a bit further, it weren't the >Constitution we were going to war to defend. Suppose it was the right to >wear loud shirts in public. > >Presumably, the "enemy" feel equally strongly about NOT wearing loud shirts >in public. > >So, does this mean that every captured enemy soldier shall be made to wear a >loud shirt? So they can be included in _OUR_ system? Let's say we had a law against not wearing loud shirts. Someone is accused of not wearing loud shirts. He gets arrested and gets to defend himself in court. Rule of law doesn't say that anything is allowed, it says that the government can't decide arbitrarily which people are allowed to defend themselves in court. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Pete Dashwood on 30 Jan 2010 20:44 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:40:10 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Suppose, just for the sake of exploring this a bit further, it >> weren't the Constitution we were going to war to defend. Suppose it >> was the right to wear loud shirts in public. >> >> Presumably, the "enemy" feel equally strongly about NOT wearing loud >> shirts in public. >> >> So, does this mean that every captured enemy soldier shall be made >> to wear a loud shirt? So they can be included in _OUR_ system? > > Let's say we had a law against not wearing loud shirts. Someone is > accused of not wearing loud shirts. He gets arrested and gets to > defend himself in court. But that is not the same as being at WAR over the issue. Certainly, our citizens have the right to their day in court whether it is for wearing a loud shirt or for having exploding underpants. But if you wear those underpants on a plane with the intention to destroy yourself, the plane, and everyone on it, that is not just a violation of the underpants law. That moves it up to a whole new level. Why should someone who is NOT a citizen have the same rights as we do, IF they have already demonstrated, by action leading to the untimely death of our citizens and destruction of our property, that they completely disagree with our system and our society, and are dedicated to bringing it down by violence? > > Rule of law doesn't say that anything is allowed, it says that the > government can't decide arbitrarily which people are allowed to defend > themselves in court. No, rule of law is for the protectection of the populace of a civilised society. If we all lived alone and apart from others, we wouldn't need laws. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 30 Jan 2010 22:26 In article <36003cc2-89af-46c9-bfde-fc34d9165057(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jan 29, 3:57?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> In article ><cab0c90e-17c2-4dff-bcc9-2e181877c...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >On Jan 28, 7:34?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: [smip] >> >> As it seems there can be no ratio established between 'having all powers' >> >> and 'having limited powers' - as 'all powers' can readily conclude powers >> >> which are not part of the subset of 'the limited' - then any attempt to >> >> reconcile an omnipotent being with a limited one can readily be concluded >> >> to be an attempt to deal with an irrationality. >> >> >> At least... I believe that this is part of how English As She Is Spoke >> >> works. >> >> >DD, you should know, better than most, that English is an evolving >> >language and is spoken in many different ways around the globe. I was >> >quite surprised when I looked up Wiki to see exactly how many dialects >> >there are, even in the UK. >> >> I am not only willing to admit to the limitations of my learning... by my >> postings here it might be concluded that I'm willing to demonstrate it, as >> well. ? >> >> To the best of my knowledge the 'ir-' prefix (as derived from the Latin >> 'in-' prefix) has been used to indicate negation or the absence of a >> quality for a goodly number of centuries and the specific I used >> ('irrational') can be traced to the early-mid 15th century. ?This may be >> seen as a rather sound precedent... but, of course, if anyone has citings >> indicating otherwise then, by all means, bring them forward so that >> something might be learned from the analysis and discussion thereof. > >I wasn't criticising the ir- prefix, merely the innocent proclamation >which followed it. Leaving aside the criticising of an act labelled 'inncenct - an odd combination of words, I'd say - I believe that what you are referring to as a proclamation is 'I believe that this is part of how English As She Is Spoke works.' Granted that languages evolve... but notice how the confession of belief is concerned with the present tense ('... As She Is...'), hence my curiosity as to where and how, contemporaneous with the present, that things are otherwise. DD
From: Anonymous on 30 Jan 2010 22:36
In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> The President, to the best of my knowledge, has powers enumerated by >> the Constitution and none of these include abrogation of Amdnement VI >> protections, ie 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall >> enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of >> the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...' > >Your knowledge is incomplete. As CinC, he has all the powers normally vested >in a military leader according to the usual rules of war. Further, our >Supreme Court validated this proposition in the "Prize Cases" (67 US 635) in >1862. This does not, by my reading, abrogate the rights enumerated by Amendment VI; if you be]ieve it does then please cite the section and interpretation which supports this belief. > >The 6th Amendment, as you point out, begins: "In all criminal >prosecutions..." A terrorist need not be considered a criminal and in some >cases cannot be. For example, if a terrorist kills a bunch of American >tourists in Cairo, the United States has NO criminal jurisdiction over the >actors. The question was not one of jurisdiction - as the novel habit of 'extraordinary rendition' puts in a different light, the question was one of criminal prosecution. If those being held against their will are not in the process of being prosecuted then there are a few laws regarding the restriction of their liberties which might be applicable; if they are being held because of their process of prosecution then Amendment VI appears to apply. [snip] >I just did. The president, or his designee, can denote someone as an >(unlawful) enemy combatant - this is in accordance with the usual rules of >war as codified in the Hague and Geneva protocols. When that happens, its >the end of the story. Unless 'the end of the story' is equivalent with 'the end of their being considered a person under the Constutitution of the United States of America' you would seem to be incorrect. Persons have rights, as explicitly enumerated. >This feature has made it up to one appellate court >which said that if the president's action is unacceptable, the people can >replace him at the next election, but that was the only recourse. If you are of the belief that apellate courts determine Constitutionality then a great many of your arguments appear to be explained. [snip] >Pay attention to the point: A terrorist is NOT automatically a criminal. Pay attention to the point: the Constitution states, black-letter, that people have rights. Such a denial of humanity has not, to the best of my knowledge, been legally codified. DD |