Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Feb 2010 10:49 On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:25:49 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> According our constitution, anyone tied in this country is entitled. > >Yes, and that is fair and noble and was written by people who couldn't even >begin to imagine the horros that modern technology, unleashed without qualm >or conscience, could inflict on civilian populations. It needs an update, >and I recognise that the update process for such a document is absolutely >fraught with possible pitfalls. It needs to recognise that there can be >exceptions to the rights conferred, based on demonstrated behaviors of >crimes against humanity. There has been a long history of warriors coming into a state and killing most everybody with swords. So why should people accused of such crimes have more rights than people coming into a state and killing those same people with bombs? -- "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 1 Feb 2010 10:58 On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:44:19 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> Let's say we had a law against not wearing loud shirts. Someone is >> accused of not wearing loud shirts. He gets arrested and gets to >> defend himself in court. > >But that is not the same as being at WAR over the issue. Certainly, our >citizens have the right to their day in court whether it is for wearing a >loud shirt or for having exploding underpants. But if you wear those >underpants on a plane with the intention to destroy yourself, the plane, and >everyone on it, that is not just a violation of the underpants law. That >moves it up to a whole new level. Does war (even an undeclared war - that excluded home-grown non-Islamic terrorists), mean those accused don't get the right to prove their innocence? Or does it mean foreign accused people only don't get the right to prove their innocence? >Why should someone who is NOT a citizen have the same rights as we do, IF >they have already demonstrated, by action leading to the untimely death of >our citizens and destruction of our property, that they completely disagree >with our system and our society, and are dedicated to bringing it down by >violence? Why should someone who is NOT a citizen have the same rights as other non-citizens? In times of peace, the state, just like the rest of us, has made mistakes in accusing someone of a crime - and this has been more common when there has been political pressure to find and punish the guilty party. Is this more likely or less likely to occur in times of war? Does it serve our purposes when people who might or might not support our enemy see us abandon our principles in order to punish someone? >> Rule of law doesn't say that anything is allowed, it says that the >> government can't decide arbitrarily which people are allowed to defend >> themselves in court. > >No, rule of law is for the protectection of the populace of a civilised >society. If we all lived alone and apart from others, we wouldn't need >laws. It is for the protection of all. Civilized people don't punish the innocent because they aren't a member of "civilized society". -- "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: Alistair on 1 Feb 2010 10:59 On Jan 31, 10:30 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > On Jan 30, 1:14 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Does the Geneva Convention define a non-participant eg a civilian? I > > only ask because, unless there is a specific definition for non- > > belligerant civilians OR belligerant UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, all > > civilians would be deemed unlawful combatants. > > > Elsewhere, someone pointed out that French Resistance fighters in WW2 > > were unlawful combatants. I doubt that they and their kin would > > appreciate being linked to OBL and his murderous thugs. > > It's a valid point, Alistair. > > One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom fighter". > > That's why I believe the inclusion or exclusion of "rights" must be based on > actual behaviour, not belief. You can be in the Resistance and believe > firmly in the cause, but if you then directly cause the deaths of thousands > of civilians ("directly", not through reprisals...), I believe you have > abnegated your rights, just as OBL has by his admitted actions. > My understanding of OBL's reasoning is that he sees himself as a Muslim resistance fighter attempting to free his people from the oppressive regime of the USA. He sees civilians, by their inaction against the USA government, to be passively supporting that oppressive regime and thereby justifying his making targets out of them. The fact that the USA was not actively involved in any aspect of oppressing his people seems to have slipped his mind. He is just an angry man seeking to validate his bitterness through his twisted philosophy and, perhaps, to gain approbation from future generations of oppressed. Sad really. His reasoning stems from the 1960s and is at least 4 decades out of date.
From: Alistair on 1 Feb 2010 11:02 On Jan 31, 10:35 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> 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... > > > A little needle in the back of the hand is directly opposite to your > > previous stances on crime and capital punishment. > > No it isn't. I do NOT support capital punishment and I live in a country > that doesn't. I do believe in rehabilition if there is the remotest chance > of that working and have seen success in this area, right here in my own > country. BUT, I have ALWAYS believed there are certian crimes which are so > "beyond the pale" that the best we can do is simply remove the perpetrators. > A little needle is the most humane way to do it. > > I hope this clarifies my position and if you can show it contradicts > anything I have previously said (taken in full context) then I apologize. > Having once gone back through the archives to prove you wrong and found that it was a futile effort, I shall take your word for it on this one. > > > > As to forcing the defeated enemy to wear loud shirts, that would > > condstitute a cruel and unusual punishment and would not be permitted > > under the USA constitution. > > So would making them conform to OUR system. > > Why not try them under Islamic law and then stone them to death? > Islamic law would find them innocent as their actions were those of Jihadis and therefore within the pale of Islamic law.
From: SkippyPB on 1 Feb 2010 11:54
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:02:11 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jan 31, 10:35�pm, "Pete Dashwood" ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> Alistair wrote: >> > On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood" >> > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> 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... >> >> > A little needle in the back of the hand is directly opposite to your >> > previous stances on crime and capital punishment. >> >> No it isn't. I do NOT support capital punishment and I live in a country >> that doesn't. I do believe in rehabilition if there is the remotest chance >> of that working and have seen success in this area, right here in my own >> country. BUT, I have ALWAYS believed there are certian crimes which are so >> "beyond the pale" that the best we can do is simply remove the perpetrators. >> A little needle is the most humane way to do it. >> >> I hope this clarifies my position and if you can show it contradicts >> anything I have previously said (taken in full context) then I apologize. >> > >Having once gone back through the archives to prove you wrong and >found that it was a futile effort, I shall take your word for it on >this one. > >> >> >> > As to forcing the defeated enemy to wear loud shirts, that would >> > condstitute a cruel and unusual punishment and would not be permitted >> > under the USA constitution. >> >> So would making them conform to OUR system. >> >> Why not try them under Islamic law and then stone them to death? >> > >Islamic law would find them innocent as their actions were those of >Jihadis and therefore within the pale of Islamic law. Not necessarily. The Qur'an has a very strict definition of when it is permissible to carry out a Jihad. It is far too lenghty to get into here but basically it says that permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been oppressed This is the first verse of the Qur�an in which the Companions of the Prophet who had migrated from Makkah (the Muhajirun) were given permission to fight back if they were attacked. The Qur�an says that these Companions were driven out of their homes because they believed that Allah was their Lord and as such were totally innocent. A little deliberation shows that this one sentence depicts the whole charge-sheet against the Quraysh. The reason for this is that no one is willing to leave his home unless he is oppressed for living there and thereby utterly compelled to migrate. The terrorists would have a very hard time showing any Islamic Court they had "permission" to perform a Jihad especially against innocents. Remember the terrorists are opeating under a radical, basically false, interpretation of the Qur'an. A true Islamic Court would not. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve |