Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 16 Feb 2010 20:31 In article <fKKdnRnpZIlj5eTWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >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. [snip] >I assert that someone designated an enemy combatant, while certainly a >"person," is not a person charged with a criminal offense. If wishes where horses then the beggars would ride, if your assertions were regulations your reasoning (quotation marks and all), with law, might be in stride. DD
From: HeyBub on 18 Feb 2010 10:29 Howard Brazee wrote: > 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? Them's the breaks. The rules of war are different from the rules of criminal justice. Our federal appellate courts have held that the president - or his surrogate - may deem anyone an unlawful enemy combatant and that decision cannot be gainsaid by anyone. Not the Congress, not the courts. One appellate court did, however, offer a remedy for improper use of this authority: "The president may be replaced at the next scheduled election..." If I got scooped up in such a situation, I guess I'd go to my hanging confident that the greater good was being done. Probably my last words would be: "God bless Captain Vere!"
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Feb 2010 12:49 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:29:28 -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? > >Them's the breaks. The rules of war are different from the rules of criminal >justice. Which is more important - that you catch the guilty criminal, or that you catch your real enemy? Whichever is more important, make damn sure you don't feel complacent because you got "somebody". Punishing the innocent makes it much, much more likely that the guilty will get away. Are those the breaks you're comfortable with? -- "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 1 Mar 2010 11:52 Howard Brazee wrote: >> >> Them's the breaks. The rules of war are different from the rules of >> criminal justice. > > Which is more important - that you catch the guilty criminal, or that > you catch your real enemy? > > Whichever is more important, make damn sure you don't feel complacent > because you got "somebody". > > Punishing the innocent makes it much, much more likely that the guilty > will get away. > > Are those the breaks you're comfortable with? First, everybody is guilty of something. Catching a truly innocent person is almost impossible. For example, few people are in prison for what they DID; they are there for what could be proved. Very often what they did cannot be proved and what was proved was not what they did. Second, there are three reasons for criminal sanctions: 1. To protect society from further depredations of the accused, 2. To rehabilitate the offender, and 3. To deter others with similar rascally inclinations. Obviously for and innocent person rules #1 and #2 don't apply. Still, there is profit to be gained from #3.
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Mar 2010 13:02
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:52:04 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Punishing the innocent makes it much, much more likely that the guilty >> will get away. >> >> Are those the breaks you're comfortable with? > >First, everybody is guilty of something. Catching a truly innocent person is >almost impossible. For example, few people are in prison for what they DID; >they are there for what could be proved. Very often what they did cannot be >proved and what was proved was not what they did. > >Second, there are three reasons for criminal sanctions: >1. To protect society from further depredations of the accused, >2. To rehabilitate the offender, and >3. To deter others with similar rascally inclinations. > >Obviously for and innocent person rules #1 and #2 don't apply. Still, there >is profit to be gained from #3. Which didn't address the issue from my quote above. Punishing the innocent makes it much more likely that the guilty will not be punished. I don't see anything about having a crime that "goes beyond the pale" that makes me more willing to allow the guilty to go free. Sure we defer some other rascals. But the guilty know they got away with it - and they may believe this was due to divine intervention. The crime is so bad that we are willing to punish the innocent (after all, we're all guilty of something) - and let the attackers attack us again. Doesn't that give you a nice warm feeling inside? -- "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 |