Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 5 Feb 2010 11:14 On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:19:22 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> I am assuming that "beyond the pale" doesn't apply to people whose >> skin isn't as pale as mine, but applies to that heinous crime that was >> committed by the local businessman in his off-time as well. > >It isn't about "proving your innocence" and I covered that. It is to me. Due process is about making sure the state allows me a chance to prove my innocence. It's about not arresting me without sufficient evidence. Different crimes have different punishments - but the need to make sure we don't punish the innocent and we don't take away the rights of the innocent is even more important for the worst crimes. You seem to have proposed we suspend due process for terrorists. I don't know how you know who is a terrorist until due process has been done. So what do you propose? How should we have treated Timothy McVeigh differently than we did? -- "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 5 Feb 2010 11:16 On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:35:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >I take your points, but whether on physical or spiritual or mental or >emotional or any other grounds I think there is a difference between someone >who commits crimes againnst Humanity and the rest of us. How do you define "crimes against Humanity"? Is there a minimum number of victims? Historically, we have used that term to try people belonging to nations that have lost wars. >Furthermore, I believe the existing legal system should be updated to >reflect that difference. In what way? -- "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: HeyBub on 5 Feb 2010 12:30 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <UKadnc3GWuTvRPXWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> 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) > > You missed freely exercise religion, have unabridged freedom of > speech and petition the government. Sigh. No I didn't. The BOR does NOT say the people have a right to worship as they choose or have the unfettered ability to speak as they please. Nor does it say the people have a right to petition the government. In fact "the people" are not even mentioned in the 1st Amendment. Amendment I imposes a DUTY on the Congress, not a right on the people. The "people" did not have these rights until 1925 (speech), 1940 (religion), and 1963 (petition for grievances). > >> * The people have a right to keep and bear arms (#2) > > You missed Amendment III... and we *all* know how many cases have been > brought under that one! No I didn't. Amendment III is not binding on the states. A state government is free to quarter troops anywhere it wants. > >> * The people have a right to be secure against unreasonable search >> and seizure (#4) > > You missed something about warrants not being issued except upon > probable cause supported by oath or affirmation *and* particular > description of places searched and persons/things seized... no > 'fishing expeditions' That's for WARRANTS. The "people" are not immune to searches without a warrant, only "unreasonable" searches are prohibited. You can be strip searched at the border, patted down on the street, and so forth. If a warrant is issued, then the search becomes "reasonable." "Fishing expeditions" are certainly permitted (if reasonable). That's how the TSA can search your luggage, dogs can sniff your car, and IRS agents can look at your bank account. > >> * Double jeopardy (#5) >> >> That's about it. > > You missed something about self-incrimination and the due process of > law here... but I think I am beginning to see a pattern. The "people" are not protected against self-incrimination. A "person" CAN be compelled to give testimony against himself in a civil suit. The protection against self-incrimination applies only to CRIMINAL prosecutions. > >> >> 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) > group who, in the Preamble, ordained and established the > Constitution) but are extended in that they apply to 'No person'... > blac > >> * 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. > > If 'a person' is a subset of 'people' and a law begins with 'no person > shall' then it is is permissible for 'people' to do so? It seems the > opposite is true. > > The pattern I see is that more study is in order... did you know that > the Constitution has more than six Amendments and a bit of a body of > legal decisions as part of Its composition? > Yes. As I said, I had a course in Constitutional Law in law school (which is about 500 hours more of formal study than that to which you will admit). In this thread, however, I was concentrating on the notion that unlawful enemy combatants (UEC) are not subject to the same constitutional protections as those accused of criminal acts. That is, UECs - when so designated - fall outside the criminal law and the constitutional protections afforded criminals. This concept is completely foreign to many people, so I pointed out that only those accused of a criminal violation are entitled to lawyers (you don't get a court-appointed lawyer in small claims court), or are entitled to a trial by jury (you can go to jail for civil contempt without a trial), or are immune to self-incrimination (you can be compelled to provide damaging information in a civil case). Point is, only those feeding into the criminal justice system are entitled to these constitutional protections. Enemy combatants - legal or unlawful - are completely outside the defintion of "criminal" and, as such, don't necessarily get these "rights."
From: SkippyPB on 5 Feb 2010 13:03 On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:47:28 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:31:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> Like I said before, Terrorism sucks even worse than War does. >> >> How so? > >Because terrorism strikes in a cowardly and despicable way at UNSUSPECTING >civilian populations who are totally unprepared and unequpped to protect >themselves. > >At least in war, people get a chance to make the necessary physical and >mental adjustments to try and cope with it. > Do you think the innocent people on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were mentally adjusted and coped with having an atomic bomb dropped on their island beforehand? >Certainly atrocities and crimes against Humanity can and do occur in war. >But when Terrorists do that to civilian populations, in my book at least, >that is worse. > >I can see people in war going nuts and doing outrageous things; I can't see >someone tending sheep one minute and flying a plane (or forcing someone else >to) into a building the next. That's just wrong at so many levels I can't >begin to enumerate them. > >There was a time when men faced each other and had to stick bits of metal in >each other face to face to settle disputes. It wasn't pretty and there were >still grieving mothers and sweethearts, but at least it had an honesty about >it and, on some occasions, it brought out attributes of courage and honour >that we marvel at even thousands of years later. > >Terrorism does no such thing. It comes as a thief in the night, without >honour, without decency, without even human pity. > >It strangles you in your sleep, without remorse, and feeds its blood lust on >your children and your family. > >It is the last resort of cowards and assassins who know there is no way they >will attain their goals by any means of due process, because nobody else >agrees with them. So they seek to destroy the society they cannot be a part >of. > >People who can't and won't "live and let live". People who believe their way >is the only way and will destroy anyone who disagrees, not by facing them, >honestly and squarely, with respect, but by back-stabbing and stealth. > >That's why it sucks even worse than War. > >Pete. 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: SkippyPB on 5 Feb 2010 13:06
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:14:43 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >SkippyPB wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:04:09 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> Howard Brazee wrote: >>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:44:19 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Does war (even an undeclared war - that excluded home-grown >>>> non-Islamic terrorists), mean those accused don't get the right to >>>> prove their innocence? Or does it mean foreign accused people >>>> only don't get the right to prove their innocence? >>> >>> I have been talking about people who are proud of what they did and >>> don't want to "prove their innocence". Rather they trumpet their >>> actions so they can be heroes and martyrs to their own perverted >>> followers. >>> >>> I agree that people who are NOT in that category and DO protest their >>> innocence, should have their day in Court. The reason for that is >>> that they obviously haven't been persuaded to the cause, and so >>> there may still be hope for them. Perhaps they were caught up in >>> something that got out of their control, or they were peripheral to >>> it and were dragged in. Perhaps they were entirely innocent >>> bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. >>> >>> If someone (like OBL) commits atrocities that beggar the mind of a >>> normal person, is proud if what they did and would do it again given >>> the slightest opportunity, then they are candidates for my little >>> needle. >>> >> >> Do the names Hermann Goering, Hans Frank, Whilhelm Frick and Rudolf >> Hess mean anything to you? Very proud guys who never had any remorse >> for what they did. They had their day in court. It was called the >> Nuremberg War Crime Trials. Due process and all. Imagine that. > >Was there ever any doubt as to the outcome? > >What was the point? So we can smugly say: "Well, they had due process...?" > >I guess that makes them less executed... > >Pete Yes there was doubt. In fact a good number of Nazis brought up on charges at the Nuremburg Trials were found innocent. That's the point. Due process. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve |