Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Feb 2010 19:36 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> > [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. You are right, it hasn't been. My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of Human Rights. I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring. While this is not a strong legal case, it is nonetheless, how I personally feel about it. (Actually, I wish I didn't feel that way, but the images of those burning towers and people jumping off them, haunts me. It cannot be allowed to happen and giving rights to the people who did it (and are proud of having done it) just goes right against the grain. Whatever chance there may once have been of me having any sympathy for their cause, evaporated when I saw the means they employed.) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Alistair on 2 Feb 2010 07:24 On Feb 1, 4:54 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:02:11 -0800 (PST), Alistair > > > > > > <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On Jan 31, 10:35 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> 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. > > >Having once gone back through the archives to prove you wrong and > >found that it was a futile effort, I shall take your word for it on > >this one. > > >> > 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? > > >Islamic law would find them innocent as their actions were those of > >Jihadis and therefore within the pale of Islamic law. > > Not necessarily. The Qur'an has a very strict definition of when it > is permissible to carry out a Jihad. It is far too lenghty to get > into here but basically it says that permission to take up arms is > hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been > oppressed > > This is the first verse of the Quran in which the Companions of the > Prophet who had migrated from Makkah (the Muhajirun) were given > permission to fight back if they were attacked. The Quran says that > these Companions were driven out of their homes because they believed > that Allah was their Lord and as such were totally innocent. A little > deliberation shows that this one sentence depicts the whole > charge-sheet against the Quraysh. The reason for this is that no one > is willing to leave his home unless he is oppressed for living there > and thereby utterly compelled to migrate. > > The terrorists would have a very hard time showing any Islamic Court > they had "permission" to perform a Jihad especially against innocents. > The terrorists have fatwahs to back them up. That is all the excuse that they need.
From: Alistair on 2 Feb 2010 08:03 On Feb 2, 12:18 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > On Jan 31, 10:35 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Having once gone back through the archives to prove you wrong and > > found that it was a futile effort, I shall take your word for it on > > this one. > > Thank you Alistair, I appreciate your graciousness. > > I promise you I am not vacillating here. It is complex, and discussions in > the past have been about crime and punishment. I don't see this in those > terms. Inhumanity is beyond crime in my book. > > > > >>> 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? > > > Islamic law would find them innocent as their actions were those of > > Jihadis and therefore within the pale of Islamic law. > > I guess that is getting to the nub of the thread. If the enemy is completely > opposed to everything we hold dear, and they despise and vow to bring down > our system, all of that can be seen as a clash of two cultures and may > provide a reason to go to war. We would rather it didn't come to that, but > with some people, there is no option. That is a sad reality and has been > throughout history. However, when they prosecute that war by means that are > so awful, cowardly and despicable that it outrages humanity, then I believe > we don't need to afford them consideration that we would to people who did > not resort to such means. > > If we don't draw a line, then there is no point in having rights for > ANYBODY. We should just revert to the guy with the biggest spear calling the > tune... > I watched a documentary last night following a squad of Taliban in one of the northern provinces of Afghanistan. I was struck by a number of points: 1. The apparent support for the Taliban from the locals. 2. The incompetence of the Taliban (it took them three attempts to ambush a tank transporter and all they succeeded in doing was wasting one rpg (it missed) and detonating their roadside bomb after the event because it failed to go off when the target approached). 3. The lies that the Taliban told their commander. They said they had destroyed the tank and the 6-7 men escorting it. In fact they had missed all targets. Further, they had claimed to have destroyed 6 tanks on the road in question but there was only evidence for the destruction of one trailer or BMP (left over from the Russian occupation). 4. The local police said that there were no Taliban in the area. This despite the fact that the Taliban had been filmed shopping in the local petrol station 2 days before the police visited the same shop. 5. That the Taliban had imposed local (sharia) law on the area occupied and that they had become the de facto government because the locals paid their taxes to the Taliban. AND 6. One of the Taliban said (roughly): One thing that the US and English should know is that when we have won the war in Afghanistan we will come to Britain and Europe to impose Islam there.
From: Anonymous on 2 Feb 2010 09:12 In article <7spacnFd4nU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >> HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> >> [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. > >You are right, it hasn't been. We agree? Quick, somebody mark the calendar. > >My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman >behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of Human >Rights. > >I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring. If one's enemy's inhuman behavior causes one to choose to act inhumanly then one is acting in the manner of one's enemy... and if a oal of the enemy is 'to have around only People Who Act Like Us' then one has become one's enemy. 'When fighting monsters one must take care not to become one'... or something like that. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Feb 2010 09:52
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:36:36 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> 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. > >You are right, it hasn't been. > >My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman >behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of Human >Rights. I have seen no evidence that there are inalienable rights. Therefore, I believe I have an obligation to work at making sure that the rights that I value are accepted by those in power. Especially those in power who represent me and mine. >I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring. > >While this is not a strong legal case, it is nonetheless, how I personally >feel about it. > >(Actually, I wish I didn't feel that way, but the images of those burning >towers and people jumping off them, haunts me. It cannot be allowed to >happen and giving rights to the people who did it (and are proud of having >done it) just goes right against the grain. Whatever chance there may once >have been of me having any sympathy for their cause, evaporated when I saw >the means they employed.) I don't know that I ever had any sympathy for their cause. But I also am aware that every nation has committed similar actions, killing innocent people for their causes. Furthermore, that has never been limited to nations, nor foreign religious groups. I also never had any sympathy for Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols. But I am very glad that they had their days in court. I didn't want to just find someone to punish, but we found the guilty parties. Too bad those who influenced them are still selling their hatreds. I also don't want to react in the way that those terrorists plan. I don't like it when bin Laden gets us to fight his battles. I don't like it when we turn our airports into police state airports (even though the heroes in flight 93 solved that issue on 9-11). Bin Laden would have preferred that we attack Saudi Arabia, but really didn't expect that. As it was, he was very successful in getting us to do what he wanted. -- "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 |