Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 31 Jan 2010 17:30 Alistair wrote: > On Jan 30, 1:14 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(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. > > Does the Geneva Convention define a non-participant eg a civilian? I > only ask because, unless there is a specific definition for non- > belligerant civilians OR belligerant UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, all > civilians would be deemed unlawful combatants. > > Elsewhere, someone pointed out that French Resistance fighters in WW2 > were unlawful combatants. I doubt that they and their kin would > appreciate being linked to OBL and his murderous thugs. It's a valid point, Alistair. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom fighter". That's why I believe the inclusion or exclusion of "rights" must be based on actual behaviour, not belief. You can be in the Resistance and believe firmly in the cause, but if you then directly cause the deaths of thousands of civilians ("directly", not through reprisals...), I believe you have abnegated your rights, just as OBL has by his admitted actions. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 31 Jan 2010 17:35 Alistair wrote: > On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> A little needle in the back of the hand (a firing squad equates them >> with soldiers, and that is an insult to anyone who has ever been a >> soldier...) would save the courts, taxpayers, and bleeding hearts a >> heap of time and money, and let us get on with the task of finding >> (and needling) the rest of them... >> > > A little needle in the back of the hand is directly opposite to your > previous stances on crime and capital punishment. No it isn't. I do NOT support capital punishment and I live in a country that doesn't. I do believe in rehabilition if there is the remotest chance of that working and have seen success in this area, right here in my own country. BUT, I have ALWAYS believed there are certian crimes which are so "beyond the pale" that the best we can do is simply remove the perpetrators. A little needle is the most humane way to do it. I hope this clarifies my position and if you can show it contradicts anything I have previously said (taken in full context) then I apologize. > > As to forcing the defeated enemy to wear loud shirts, that would > condstitute a cruel and unusual punishment and would not be permitted > under the USA constitution. So would making them conform to OUR system. Why not try them under Islamic law and then stone them to death? Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Feb 2010 10:34 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:36:34 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>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. One of the many "changes" we elected our current administration to intact was to follow the Constitution in such manners. But it seems to be waiting in the queue with all of those other changes. -- "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 1 Feb 2010 10:38 On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:30:05 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> Elsewhere, someone pointed out that French Resistance fighters in WW2 >> were unlawful combatants. I doubt that they and their kin would >> appreciate being linked to OBL and his murderous thugs. > >It's a valid point, Alistair. > >One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom fighter". > >That's why I believe the inclusion or exclusion of "rights" must be based on >actual behaviour, not belief. You can be in the Resistance and believe >firmly in the cause, but if you then directly cause the deaths of thousands >of civilians ("directly", not through reprisals...), I believe you have >abnegated your rights, just as OBL has by his admitted actions. Of course, the establishment's killing is by definition lawful, while the resistance's killing is unlawful. I'm sure the victims are comforted when the bombs that kill them are lawful. -- "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 1 Feb 2010 10:45
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:32:16 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >It depends on HOW they are waging the war against us. I think HeyBub made >the point that legal combatants are entitled to rights and protection; >illegal ones are not. Legal protections are primarily about making sure we punish the guilty, and not just scapegoats. It doesn't really matter whether we punish innocent people for lawful war or whether we punish innocent people for unlawful war. >Think about the images of those people jumping from >the buring skyscrapers. Does that seem like a "legal" or fair war to you? >Suppose it was YOUR family? And it isn't about getting revenge. It is about >treating people who are capable of such acts the way they deserve to be >treated. "Legal" war is one which a legal state declared. If, say Afghanistan had declared war against the U.S. before that attack, and my family had been victims of that attack, I wouldn't have been comforted at all about it being "legal" and "fair". But if I were accused of such a heinous action - legal or not - I want my rights to prove my innocence. -- "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 |