Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: HeyBub on 30 Jan 2010 08:15 Alistair wrote: > > 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 Have you ever seen OBL and Al Gore together? Hmm?
From: Pete Dashwood on 30 Jan 2010 08:40 SkippyPB wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:52:45 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(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. I found that interesting, Steve. I can't see your reasoning. "If we go to war to defend _OUR_ Constitution..." (emphasis is mine) Why would an enemy need for even a heartbeat to be included in something which they are going to war against? Suppose, just for the sake of exploring this a bit further, it weren't the Constitution we were going to war to defend. Suppose it was the right to wear loud shirts in public. Presumably, the "enemy" feel equally strongly about NOT wearing loud shirts in public. So, does this mean that every captured enemy soldier shall be made to wear a loud shirt? So they can be included in _OUR_ system? Seems a bit inhumane and arbitrary, doesn't it? I may be wrong about this, but it seems fair and reasonable to me that people who are so vehemently opposed to a certain system that they will wage war against it, cannot reasonably be included in it, and they probably don't want to be either. I think we should respect their right to NOT be included in the Constitutional rights OUR Citizens enjoy (and which they have shown by their actions they despise and scorn) and if we manage to catch the people who fly airplanes into buildings or leave bombs in school buses, or underground railways, we should simply treat them as what they are: "The Enemy". A little needle in the back of the hand (a firing squad equates them with soldiers, and that is an insult to anyone who has ever been a soldier...) would save the courts, taxpayers, and bleeding hearts a heap of time and money, and let us get on with the task of finding (and needling) the rest of them... Guess it's just as well I don't rule the world... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Doug Miller on 30 Jan 2010 11:08 In article <c8c870a7-907e-4b1c-9f24-5ed6b5e5dce0(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Dec 21 2009, 5:17=A0pm, "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. I see no reason to pay any more attention to his opinions on that subject than to Al Gore's. Neither one has any training at all in any relevant field: Gore is a lawyer and failed divinity student; bin Laden is a mechanical engineer.
From: SkippyPB on 30 Jan 2010 11:58 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:40:07 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >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. > OK, let me rephrase: The use of "Enemy Combatants" by the United States is....a phrase used to ignore the constitution of the United States, i.e. due process. 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. -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been."" -- Unknown ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: SkippyPB on 30 Jan 2010 12:04
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:40:10 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >SkippyPB wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:52:45 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(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. > >I found that interesting, Steve. > >I can't see your reasoning. > >"If we go to war to defend _OUR_ Constitution..." (emphasis is mine) > >Why would an enemy need for even a heartbeat to be included in something >which they are going to war against? > >Suppose, just for the sake of exploring this a bit further, it weren't the >Constitution we were going to war to defend. Suppose it was the right to >wear loud shirts in public. > >Presumably, the "enemy" feel equally strongly about NOT wearing loud shirts >in public. > >So, does this mean that every captured enemy soldier shall be made to wear a >loud shirt? So they can be included in _OUR_ system? > >Seems a bit inhumane and arbitrary, doesn't it? > >I may be wrong about this, but it seems fair and reasonable to me that >people who are so vehemently opposed to a certain system that they will wage >war against it, cannot reasonably be included in it, and they probably don't >want to be either. > >I think we should respect their right to NOT be included in the >Constitutional rights OUR Citizens enjoy (and which they have shown by their >actions they despise and scorn) and if we manage to catch the people who fly >airplanes into buildings or leave bombs in school buses, or underground >railways, we should simply treat them as what they are: "The Enemy". > >A little needle in the back of the hand (a firing squad equates them with >soldiers, and that is an insult to anyone who has ever been a soldier...) >would save the courts, taxpayers, and bleeding hearts a heap of time and >money, and let us get on with the task of finding (and needling) the rest of >them... > >Guess it's just as well I don't rule the world... :-) > >Pete. The point is not whether or not the "combatant" is included in the rights of our Constitution. Rather it is should we (US citizens) ignore and suspend our constitution when capturing and trying those who are waging a war against us? If we ignore or suspend those guarantees, then we put ourselves at their level. We have ideals and morals that are expounded on in the US Constitution. If we (US citizens) are not going to abide by them 100% of the time, then what's the point? Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been."" -- Unknown ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve |