Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: HeyBub on 29 Jan 2010 17:40 SkippyPB wrote: > > "Enemy Combatants"....a phrase created to ignore the constitution. > If we go to war to defend our Constitution then those we go to war > against should be held accountable to it and under it, not be ignored > by it. No, "enemy combatants" is a phrase coined by the 4th Geneva Convention. An enemy combatant is one possessing the four characteristics I mentioned earlier. This Convention went into some detail regarding exceptions (such as a hurriedly-organized militia to defend against an invasion), and folks who opperate on the periphery of combat such as fortification builders, truck drivers carryng war material, medical and social workers, other government workers (i.e. postmen) who have a minimal impact on the conflict, and dozens of other permutations. Also note that the Constitution and TREATIES MADE PURSUANT THERETO are the supreme law of the land. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva treaties and Hauge protocols. These treaties have the same force as our Constitution. The phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" was coined by our Supreme Court when it was asked to deal with German saboteurs who were put ashore on Long Island (Ex parte Quirin 317 U.S. 1 - 1942). There the court held: "By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission." (In my view, this last paragraph exactly describes the Christmas bomber.) The Supreme Court went on to say: "We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury." Quirin and his buddies were hanged.
From: Alistair on 30 Jan 2010 07:16 On Dec 21 2009, 5:17 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > "There is another even more powerful (but much less visible) agent behind > all of these [politicians, lobbyists, environmentalists, and Wall Street > manipulators]. > > "The person behind the screen is the computer programmer. And, just like in > the Wizard of OZ, they do not want you to look at this real controller." > > http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-perils-of-global-warming... > > Think of it. We rule the world. Maybe we all should get together or > something... I presume that all climate change nay-sayers will take comfort from Osama Bin Laden's latest audio tape release where he blames the US for climate change. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8487030.stm
From: Alistair on 30 Jan 2010 07:19 On Jan 29, 3:57 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <cab0c90e-17c2-4dff-bcc9-2e181877c...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups..com>, > > > > > > Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On Jan 28, 7:34?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> In article <834dc8a3-4800-4324-beb3-b87bc998c...(a)b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >On Jan 25, 1:35?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> >> In article > >> ><f8a8a0a3-d02a-4ff8-b4be-a80dbb68e...(a)a22g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >On Jan 23, 2:42?am, "Pete Dashwood" > >> >> ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> >> >> Alistair wrote: > >> >> >> > On Jan 22, 1:44 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > >> >> >> > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> Maybe some people have religion so deeply ingrained in them that no amont of > >> >> >> education will get them thinking for themselves. > > >> >> >My fundamentalist friend whenever we have arguments (about the age of > >> >> >the earth, etc.) asks for citations and says "that depends upon what > >> >> >you mean by...". > > >> >> This is one of the Very Good Reasons for beginning with agreed-upon > >> >> Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions before one begins to construct > >> >> Propositions for proof/disproof. > > >> >Second time around for me on this and the thought occured to me: if > >> >there is an omnipotent god then there can be no fundamental agreeable > >> >definitions as a god would have the power to change the definition at > >> >any moment. > > >> As it seems there can be no ratio established between 'having all powers' > >> and 'having limited powers' - as 'all powers' can readily conclude powers > >> which are not part of the subset of 'the limited' - then any attempt to > >> reconcile an omnipotent being with a limited one can readily be concluded > >> to be an attempt to deal with an irrationality. > > >> At least... I believe that this is part of how English As She Is Spoke > >> works. > > >DD, you should know, better than most, that English is an evolving > >language and is spoken in many different ways around the globe. I was > >quite surprised when I looked up Wiki to see exactly how many dialects > >there are, even in the UK. > > I am not only willing to admit to the limitations of my learning... by my > postings here it might be concluded that I'm willing to demonstrate it, as > well. > > To the best of my knowledge the 'ir-' prefix (as derived from the Latin > 'in-' prefix) has been used to indicate negation or the absence of a > quality for a goodly number of centuries and the specific I used > ('irrational') can be traced to the early-mid 15th century. This may be > seen as a rather sound precedent... but, of course, if anyone has citings > indicating otherwise then, by all means, bring them forward so that > something might be learned from the analysis and discussion thereof. > > DD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I wasn't criticising the ir- prefix, merely the innocent proclamation which followed it.
From: Alistair on 30 Jan 2010 07:21 On Jan 29, 6:15 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:52:45 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >Howard Brazee wrote: > > >> Again, that's how virgins are created... > > >> How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is like > >> destroying the village in order to save it? > > >Gotta stamp this out every time I see it. > > >The Constitution offers only minimal protection to terrorists. The active > >phrases in the Constitution are things like "In all criminal > >prosecutions..." or "No person shall answer for a ... crime..." > > >Unlawful enemy combatants are not criminals. They do not have a > >Constitutional right to a lawyer, trial by jury, indictment by a grand jury, > >remain silent, or any of the other "rights" accorded violators of the > >criminal law. What protections they DO have are found under Article II where > >the President is blessed as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The > >president may do with unlawful enemy combatants whatever he chooses and his > >decision cannot be gainsaid by anyone; not the Congress, not the courts. > > >A "lawful enemy combatant" is one who: 1) Wears a distinctive uniform or > >insignia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Adheres to a defined chain of command, > >and 4) Conforms to the usual rules of war. By extension, a combatant not > >fulfilling all these attributes is an "unlawful" enemy combatant. This > >designation includes saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, > >resistance fighters, and the like, plus those assisting. > > >The usual way of dealing with these folks, since time immemorial, is to kill > >them out of hand. > > >All this doesn't mean a terrorist can't be treated as a criminal, just that > >whether he goes into the criminal justice system bucket or the military > >tribunal bucket is often a discretionary decision. The Christmas bomber > >could go either way; someone captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan > >could, reasonably, be directed only to the military tribunal bucket (after > >all, what U.S. criminal law has he broken?). > > >Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, nor is he entitled to, constitutional > >protections when he is outside the criminal justice system. Another > >significant point is that the citizenship of the terrorist is immaterial.. > >During WW2, we had, literally, hundreds of thousands of German and Italian > >POWs in the U.S. (Texas alone had over 100 POW camps). A significant number > >were U.S. citizens (think dual citizenship). Not a single prisoner ever had > >a day in court for any reason (except for courts martial for offenses > >committed while a POW). > > "Enemy Combatants"....a phrase created to ignore the constitution. > If we go to war to defend our Constitution then those we go to war > against should be held accountable to it and under it, not be ignored > by it. > Surely the arbiter of this would be whether the definition of LAWFUL or UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS appears in the Geneva convention.
From: HeyBub on 30 Jan 2010 08:14
Alistair wrote: > On Jan 29, 6:15 pm, SkippyPB <swieg...(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:52:45 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Howard Brazee wrote: >> >>>> Again, that's how virgins are created... >> >>>> How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is >>>> like destroying the village in order to save it? >> >>> Gotta stamp this out every time I see it. >> >>> The Constitution offers only minimal protection to terrorists. The >>> active phrases in the Constitution are things like "In all criminal >>> prosecutions..." or "No person shall answer for a ... crime..." >> >>> Unlawful enemy combatants are not criminals. They do not have a >>> Constitutional right to a lawyer, trial by jury, indictment by a >>> grand jury, remain silent, or any of the other "rights" accorded >>> violators of the criminal law. What protections they DO have are >>> found under Article II where the President is blessed as Commander >>> in Chief of the armed forces. The president may do with unlawful >>> enemy combatants whatever he chooses and his decision cannot be >>> gainsaid by anyone; not the Congress, not the courts. >> >>> A "lawful enemy combatant" is one who: 1) Wears a distinctive >>> uniform or insignia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Adheres to a >>> defined chain of command, and 4) Conforms to the usual rules of >>> war. By extension, a combatant not fulfilling all these attributes >>> is an "unlawful" enemy combatant. This designation includes >>> saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, resistance fighters, >>> and the like, plus those assisting. >> >>> The usual way of dealing with these folks, since time immemorial, >>> is to kill them out of hand. >> >>> All this doesn't mean a terrorist can't be treated as a criminal, >>> just that whether he goes into the criminal justice system bucket >>> or the military tribunal bucket is often a discretionary decision. >>> The Christmas bomber could go either way; someone captured on the >>> battlefield in Afghanistan could, reasonably, be directed only to >>> the military tribunal bucket (after all, what U.S. criminal law has >>> he broken?). >> >>> Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, nor is he entitled to, >>> constitutional protections when he is outside the criminal justice >>> system. Another significant point is that the citizenship of the >>> terrorist is immaterial. During WW2, we had, literally, hundreds of >>> thousands of German and Italian POWs in the U.S. (Texas alone had >>> over 100 POW camps). A significant number were U.S. citizens (think >>> dual citizenship). Not a single prisoner ever had a day in court >>> for any reason (except for courts martial for offenses committed >>> while a POW). >> >> "Enemy Combatants"....a phrase created to ignore the constitution. >> If we go to war to defend our Constitution then those we go to war >> against should be held accountable to it and under it, not be ignored >> by it. >> > > Surely the arbiter of this would be whether the definition of LAWFUL > or UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS appears in the Geneva convention. Sure. And the definition of "lawful combatant" DOES appear in the 3th Geneva Convention, Article 2(B) as one who wears a uniform, has a chain of command, carries arms openly, and follows the rules of war. By extension, a belligerent not meeting the requirements of "lawful combatant" is an "unlawful" enemy combatant. |