Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: HeyBub on 2 Feb 2010 12:55 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. Yes. The conventions and protocols cover those aiding the war effort but not in the carrying of arms: aid workers, construction workers building fortifications, civilian truck drivers carrying war material, workers in armaments plants, and so on. Also defined are those civilians who are hastily organized into a defense militia to repel and invasion. The protocols even go so far as to describe non-belligerent government workers such as police and firemen, letter carriers, etc. From the German's perspective, members of the French Resistance were unlawful enemy combatants.
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 13:05 On 01/28/10 10:39, SkippyPB wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:11:09 -0700, Howard Brazee<howard(a)brazee.net> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:26:39 -0500, Tony Harding >> <tharding(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>> As The Fugs said> 40 years ago, "killing for peace is like f*cking for >>> chastity" (or words to that effect). >> >> That's how virgins are created... > > The actual phrase is, "Killing for peace is like screwing for > virginity". Source? The Fugs said it the way I posted it. Personally, I don't see a significant difference. :)
From: SkippyPB on 2 Feb 2010 13:10 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:49:47 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >SkippyPB wrote: >>> >>> Quirin and his buddies were hanged. >>> >> >> OK, let me rephrase: >> >> The use of "Enemy Combatants" by the United States is....a phrase used >> to ignore the constitution of the United States, i.e. due process. >> If we go to war to defend our Constitution then those we go to war >> against should be held accountable to it and under it, not be ignored >> by it. > >No. "Due process" et al are provisions that apply to "criminals." Enemy >combatants are NOT criminals and, as such, are not necessarily entitled to >the protections afforded by the Constitution. > >Had the framers meant otherwise, the 6th Amendment (for example) would have >begun "In all legal proceedings...." instead of "In all criminal >prosecutions..." > The "framers" didn't know "enemy combatants" or internet or cell phones or a whole host of other things. Had they, they most likely would have included "enemy combatant" in the meaning of "criminal". Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 13:18 On 01/28/10 16:52, HeyBub wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: >> >> Again, that's how virgins are created... >> >> How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is like >> destroying the village in order to save it? > > Gotta stamp this out every time I see it. <snip> 1. Quick question, what are your legal bona fides? 2. Are you really going to use the WW II interment camps as a positive example? > Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, ... <snip> Is being a terrorist a crime? How did the current dude get convicted of being a terrorist? Your say so? Any rightwingnut's suspicion? Etc.? I think I'll go back to creating virgins.
From: SkippyPB on 2 Feb 2010 13:19
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:38:19 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> 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. > >And what if you are guilty? Can you think of any reason you should still be >afforded the same rights as decent tax-paying citizens? > >The people who did it don't even recognise the right of a US court to try >them, so why should the US? > >I think there is a point where people stop being human in every accepted >sense of the word and do something SO mind-numbingly awful it redefines them >as something "inhuman". For some people the end (their own end) simply >justifies the means (whatever means they care to use, including perversions >of human concepts like fairness, compassion, and mercy). At that point I >think a little needle is fair and humane. > >Like I said, earlier, it is just as well I don't rule the world. > >However, I have done considerable soul-searching on this and there is no >point in lying about how I feel. > >I don't know whether anyone else sees it this way too, and it really doesn't >matter. > >As always, I call 'em like I see 'em. > >Pete. Have you ever read "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding? I think the lessons he was trying to show in that novel apply here. As others have said, if you treat inhumanity inhumanly, you then become inhuman and are no better than the ones you are punishing. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve |