Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: SkippyPB on 13 Feb 2010 11:31 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:16:37 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:43:55 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> >wrote: > >>Let me agree with you: Persons are (mostly - ignoring corporations) humans. >>Humans are persons. Enemy combatants are humans but they are not criminals. >>Enemy combatants are persons but they are not criminals. The criminal law >>applies ONLY to criminal prosecutions. Constitutional protections afforded >>accused criminals only apply to, well, those accused of criminal offenses. >>Constitutional protections do not apply to those facing governmental >>sanctions outside the confines of the criminal law. Examples: > > >The difficulty lies in someone who's suspected of being a terrorist, >but who's not a recognized soldier of a nation we are at war with. > >Let's use Timothy McVeigh as an example. We used police procedures >to find him and to find evidence that he was guilty. That evidence >was made public, he was tried, found guilty of multiple murders, and >executed. He happened to be an American Citizen, but foreigners who >are charged with murder get the same rights. > >We have seen a long history of states being anxious to have a public >accounting and punishment of crimes - so much so that they have >convicted and punished innocent people. Rule of law helps make sure >that we don't stop looking for the guilty because we have already >punished the innocent. > >If someone sets off a bomb in an airplane, I want to make sure we get >the guilty party. This applies if the guilty party was John Gilbert >Graham or if the guilty party was some Islamic (or other) Terrorist. >But governments are under pressure to get results - even if those >results are wrong. > >Rule of law not only protects the innocent - it gives us more >confidence that we actually did get the guilty. > >Blowing up an airplane is either a criminal act or an act of war. >Trouble is, it's no longer obvious what enemy combatants are. They >no longer wear the uniforms of states we have declared war with. > >So we don't seem to want to follow either the international rules of >war nor criminal proceedings. I don't trust any state to work >without rules. > >Make sure that we don't railroad innocent people and let the guilty >free. Extremely well stated. Another case in point was the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. After many years he was finally turned over to Scotland by Libya. He was tried in a regular Scottish criminal court and convicted of killing 270 people and sentenced to life in prison. The fact he was released last year after serving only 8 years of a life sentence because he has a terminal illness is not relevant. What is relevant is the way he was tried. If there ever was a terrorist bombing, he is clearly the poster child for that group. And if there ever was a blueprint for how these folks should be treated under the law, Scotland drew it up. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Sam Goldman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: HeyBub on 15 Feb 2010 11:40 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <wemdnV_WXarWGOjWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > > [snip] > >>> Final >>> request, what regulations do you believe render a human being a >>> non-person? > > [snip] > >> There are no regulations that render a human being a non-person. > > Thank you, finally, for a statement which follows Constitutional legal > logic and demonstrations a fraction of intellectual honesty. > > It should not be too great a step, then, to realise that if 'no > regulations () render a human being a non-person' might lead to the > conclusion that 'there are no situations under which a human being be > treated as a non-person, denied the rights, priveleges and procedures > due to any person as so mandate by the Constitution of the United > States of America.' > > [snip] Ah! I finally see where your confusion lies. Your emphasis is on "person," and when you parse the 5th Amendment you stop on that word. There are several classes of "persons" as far as (say) the Constitution is concerned. In the case of the Fifth Amendment, the sole attention is directed to those persons accused of a criminal offense. The 5th is not at all concerned with those persons who were formerly slaves, over the age of 18, female, imbibe alcoholic beverages, or any other "persons" to which various parts of the Constitution apply. There is no way to invoke the 5th Amendment when discussing the applicability of discrimination cases. For example, the 5th does not in any way apply to someone running for president. The Constituion says that to be president one must be 35 years of age and a naturally born citizen. There is no requirement that such a person be indicted by a grand jury. Only a "person" accused of a "criminal offense" is entitled to an indictment. It follows, then, that if a "person" is NOT involved with the criminal law, that "person" does not get involved with those provisions dealing solely with criminal prosections. I assert that someone designated an enemy combatant, while certainly a "person," is not a person charged with a criminal offense. If not charged with a criminal offense, that "person" does not obtain the umbrella of constitutional protections afforded criminals.
From: HeyBub on 15 Feb 2010 11:41 Howard Brazee wrote: > > > The difficulty lies in someone who's suspected of being a terrorist, > but who's not a recognized soldier of a nation we are at war with. > > Let's use Timothy McVeigh as an example. We used police procedures > to find him and to find evidence that he was guilty. That evidence > was made public, he was tried, found guilty of multiple murders, and > executed. He happened to be an American Citizen, but foreigners who > are charged with murder get the same rights. > > We have seen a long history of states being anxious to have a public > accounting and punishment of crimes - so much so that they have > convicted and punished innocent people. Rule of law helps make sure > that we don't stop looking for the guilty because we have already > punished the innocent. > > If someone sets off a bomb in an airplane, I want to make sure we get > the guilty party. This applies if the guilty party was John Gilbert > Graham or if the guilty party was some Islamic (or other) Terrorist. > But governments are under pressure to get results - even if those > results are wrong. > > Rule of law not only protects the innocent - it gives us more > confidence that we actually did get the guilty. > > Blowing up an airplane is either a criminal act or an act of war. > Trouble is, it's no longer obvious what enemy combatants are. They > no longer wear the uniforms of states we have declared war with. > > So we don't seem to want to follow either the international rules of > war nor criminal proceedings. I don't trust any state to work > without rules. > > Make sure that we don't railroad innocent people and let the guilty > free.
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Feb 2010 14:11 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:08:29 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Make sure that we don't railroad innocent people and let the guilty >> free. > >The criminal law makes no statement, anywhere, that the innocent should be >protected. It's implied, sure, but never specifically enunciated. If >guarantees were the goal, we could never convict anyone! In most penal >codes, including my state and the federal corpus, there are three - and only >three - stated goals of the criminal law: > >* To protect society from further predations of the criminal, >* To rehabilitate the offender, and >* To discourage rascally behavior by others similarily inclined. In some ways, railroading an innocent person can further this last cause. But when the guilty parties are not discouraged. And when the guilty parties are at war with us, they can be a significant population who aren't discouraged. Also, when we have punished our railroaded party, we don't try so hard to capture the guilty (that could be embarrassing). This hurts those other stated goals of criminal law. >(Note that retribution is not on the list.) I agree with that exclusion, but politicians have other goals. -- "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 15 Feb 2010 14:15
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:40:27 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >I assert that someone designated an enemy combatant, while certainly a >"person," is not a person charged with a criminal offense. If not charged >with a criminal offense, that "person" does not obtain the umbrella of >constitutional protections afforded criminals. So what happens when the state decides not to charge you or me with a criminal offense? What happens when it decides that I sat next to the wrong person on the airplane, and that therefore I'm an enemy combatant? Or if it is under pressure to find and punish someone for terrorism, and you're available? -- "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 |