Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: HeyBub on 2 Feb 2010 21:03 docdwarf(a)panix.com 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. > I don't disagree with you about the lasting effects of the Punic wars; I would expect the same deference on matters legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an expert - I had only one course in ConLaw in law school. But the principles contained therein permeate to almost all other branches. In simple terms: The Constitution most certainly does state that people have rights. Specifically: * The people have a right to peaceably assemble (#1) * The people have a right to keep and bear arms (#2) * The people have a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure (#4) * Double jeopardy (#5) That's about it. Criminals have these rights and a few more: * Indictment by grand jury (#5) * Self-incrimination (#5) * Due process (#5) * Deprived of life, liberty, or property outside the law(#5) * Public jury trial (#6) * Confront witnesses (#6) * Obtain witnesses (#6) * Have an attorney (#6) Note that "the people" do not have the rights in the second list, only criminals. For example, you can be compelled to present evidence against yourself in a civil deposition. You do not have a right to an attorney in a small-claims court. You can be incarcerated indefinitely for failure to pay child support. You CAN be stripped-searched at an airport. Point is, if you have not been charged with a crime, nor officially presumed (via probable cause) to be a criminal, you have none of the rights on the second list.
From: HeyBub on 2 Feb 2010 21:41 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > >> It wasn't until July of that year that >> Congress got around to "legalizing" the president's actions. The >> Prize Cases affirmed that the president has the inherent authority >> to do as he thinks best in times of belligerency or insurrection, >> without regard to constitutional niceties. > > The Prize Cases decision had to do with naval blockades and seized > ships. not with the declaring of human beings to be other-than-human. > The relevance to the question of non-citizens being considered > 'persons' seems to be negligible The Prize Cases had nothing to do with naval blockadesper se. It focused solely on whether the president had an inherent authority to order a blockade (instead of merely closing the ports). > > [snip] > >> To review, the 6th Amendment starts with "In all criminal >> prosecutions...." If the situation is not "criminal" in nature, the >> subject is not necessarily entitled to the provisions of the >> amendment. > > If the situation involved in the deliberate murders which occurred on > Septermber 11 are not considered 'criminal' than it seems you are > dealing with a set of definitions which are completely outside those > usually employed by American jurisprudence and further establishment > of definitions relevant to the case at hand need be established before > discussion is to continue. I can't imagine why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept that just because something is a violation of a criminal statute that the actor has to be treated as a criminal. Illegal aliens can be treated as criminals or face civil deportation - the decision regarding which is discretionary with ICE. The German saboteurs who landed in Long Island could have been dealt with under the criminal law as, I guess, illegal aliens, but were prosecuted instead via military tribunals. Carrying a gun into a secure area of an airport may subject the owner to a criminal sanction, but 99% of the time a civil fine is levied instead. Point is, not everybody who commits a heinous act is necessarily entitled to be treated as a criminal. > > [snip] > >> The question is more general than the 6th Amendment: "Can the >> president suspend ANY provision of the Constitution in times of >> national emergency?" >> >> The answer is "Yes." >> >> You may not like that answer, but, in fact, every single court >> decision balancing the president's power in time of national >> emergency versus a presumed Constitutional right has come down on >> the side of the president. > > Cite, please. Be so kind as to show where it has been determined by > the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the > Constitution is enforceable as the Supreme Law of the Land only > during such times as the President has seen fit, as 71 US 2 1866 (Ex > Parte Milligan) and 343 US 579 1952 (Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v > Sawyer) appear to deny. Your interpretation would, it seems, change > the nature of a Constutional Republic and a Government of Laws into a > Whimful Despotism. > Huh? Milligan held that military courts could not be used to enforce criminal laws if the civilian courts were operable. This decision has nothing to do with non-criminal cases. Youngstown held that the long-standing and generally accepted practice generates a constitutional presumption in its favor. Since spys and the like have been summarily executed since wars have been fought, this merely strengthens my argument. Nevertheless, you are correct, the Constitution IS the supreme law of the land (and treaties made pursuant thereto). The Constitution, under Article II, in naming the president CinC, vests unfettered and absolute rights to the office of president in times of national emergency. Further, it is the president alone who determines when a national emergency exists and to what degree. As to how that came to be, consider the Prize Cases. Specifically the part that says the President "is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force" without waiting for legislative approval. There are also cases that have held the President not legally accountable nor subject to judicial control for using troops to address an emergency (i.e., Martin v. Mott 1827). In that decision the court held: "The authority to decide whether an exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons." It's obvious, therefore, that if the president can act without legislative approval (Prize Cases) and cannot be gainsaid by the courts (Martin), then he can do pretty much as he damn well pleases.
From: HeyBub on 2 Feb 2010 21:43 SkippyPB wrote: >> >> 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". > Sure they knew about them. Check the history of Major Andre who George Washington had hanged when caught as a British spy.
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 22:42 SkippyPB wrote: > 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. I've read "Lord of the Flies". It is a novel. And it was written long before 9/11. You don't have to "treat inhumanity inhumanly". I haven't advocated that at any point. In fact, I have agreed that it demeans us to do so. But I believe we need to treat crimes against humanity differently than we treat someone who steals or even murders in a fit of passion. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 23:12
Alistair wrote: > 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. Great, isn't it? Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |