Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Feb 2010 17:26 SkippyPB wrote: > 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? > There was a war going on. If your enemy has a higher technology than you have, that's the risk you take. And whatever the awfulness of these nulear attacks, they shortened the war and saved hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives. (I have seen estimates that suggest it would have cost at least 3 million lives to invade Japan by land.) Not only that, but the fact that these weapons exist, kept the peace for 60 years afterwards. Nowadays, a Terrorist can open a phial and kill many times the number of casualties on both sides in WW II. The nuclear deterrent is NOT a deterrent to such people. You and Howard both seem to be missing the point of my argument. I'm not arguing that War is OK. We can take it as read that it sucks. My point is that there can be even worse things. I consider Terrorism to be one of those, for the reasons I outlined. > >> 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. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Feb 2010 17:28 Howard Brazee wrote: > 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. OK, then there is little point in pursuing this. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. It has been an interesting discussion in which no minds have been changed :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Feb 2010 17:37 HeyBub wrote: > 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. I'm following this with interest, Jerry. That last sentence seems pretty much in line with what I would want to see. Looks like the USA has already considered the same arguments we have been discussing here, and reached the same conclusion I did. Paraphrasing loosely: "People who are beyond the pale don't get the same treatment as people who are not." Good result. > That is, UECs - when so designated - fall outside the criminal law > and the constitutional protections afforded criminals. > As long as there are checks in place to ensure that the label "UEC" can not just be applied for political expediency, I reckon that's exactly how it should be. > 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." Great! Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Feb 2010 17:38 Howard Brazee wrote: > 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? Looks like it already has been in the USA with regard to UECs. (See post from HeyBub in this thread) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: HeyBub on 6 Feb 2010 08:49
Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> 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. > > I'm following this with interest, Jerry. > > That last sentence seems pretty much in line with what I would want > to see. > Looks like the USA has already considered the same arguments we have > been discussing here, and reached the same conclusion I did. Heh! No, the U.S. is NOT following my analysis - at least in the current administration. For example, the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda rights soon after he was captured. 1. There is NO requirement that ANY criminal suspect be advised of his right to remain silent. The only constraint is that any information gleaned from a suspect absent the warning cannot be used in a criminal trial. The weenies in the FBI are so conditioned to give the warning that it's just something they feel they HAVE to do! There was ample evidence to convict Umar Farour al-BoomBoom without using anything he said. 2. The current administration holds that virtually everything should fall under the rubric of the criminal justice system. They believe this, I suspect, because the major players (President, the Attorney General, et al) have no military experience - or for that matter, any criminal trial experience either. There's one exception: The current director of the FBI was a U.S. Marine officer during the Viet Nam war. > > Paraphrasing loosely: "People who are beyond the pale don't get the > same treatment as people who are not." > > Good result. >> That is, UECs - when so designated - fall outside the criminal law >> and the constitutional protections afforded criminals. >> > As long as there are checks in place to ensure that the label "UEC" > can not just be applied for political expediency, I reckon that's > exactly how it should be. > Under the normal rules of war, the president, or his surrogate, may denominate anyone he pleases as UEC. One appellate court has articulated the remedy for capricious actions by saying "The public may replace the president at the next scheduled election..." >> 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." > > Great! Here's another example. During WW2, the U.S. housed literally hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs (there were over 100 POW camps in my state), many of these POWs were American citizens (think dual nationality). Not a single one ever made it to the American court system. Not one. They were completely outside the criminal justice system. Some WERE tried by military courts martial for offenses committed while a POW (assault, theft, that sort of thing). > > Pete. |