Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Feb 2010 12:21 On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:54:00 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >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. There's the rub. -- "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: Pete Dashwood on 1 Feb 2010 18:38 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:32:16 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> It depends on HOW they are waging the war against us. I think HeyBub >> made the point that legal combatants are entitled to rights and >> protection; illegal ones are not. > > Legal protections are primarily about making sure we punish the > guilty, and not just scapegoats. It doesn't really matter whether > we punish innocent people for lawful war or whether we punish innocent > people for unlawful war. > >> Think about the images of those people jumping from >> the buring skyscrapers. Does that seem like a "legal" or fair war to >> you? Suppose it was YOUR family? And it isn't about getting revenge. >> It is about treating people who are capable of such acts the way >> they deserve to be treated. > > "Legal" war is one which a legal state declared. If, say > Afghanistan had declared war against the U.S. before that attack, and > my family had been victims of that attack, I wouldn't have been > comforted at all about it being "legal" and "fair". > > But if I were accused of such a heinous action - legal or not - I want > my rights to prove my innocence. And what if you are guilty? Can you think of any reason you should still be afforded the same rights as decent tax-paying citizens? The people who did it don't even recognise the right of a US court to try them, so why should the US? I think there is a point where people stop being human in every accepted sense of the word and do something SO mind-numbingly awful it redefines them as something "inhuman". For some people the end (their own end) simply justifies the means (whatever means they care to use, including perversions of human concepts like fairness, compassion, and mercy). At that point I think a little needle is fair and humane. Like I said, earlier, it is just as well I don't rule the world. However, I have done considerable soul-searching on this and there is no point in lying about how I feel. I don't know whether anyone else sees it this way too, and it really doesn't matter. As always, I call 'em like I see 'em. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Feb 2010 19:04 Howard Brazee wrote: > 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? I have been talking about people who are proud of what they did and don't want to "prove their innocence". Rather they trumpet their actions so they can be heroes and martyrs to their own perverted followers. I agree that people who are NOT in that category and DO protest their innocence, should have their day in Court. The reason for that is that they obviously haven't been persuaded to the cause, and so there may still be hope for them. Perhaps they were caught up in something that got out of their control, or they were peripheral to it and were dragged in. Perhaps they were entirely innocent bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If someone (like OBL) commits atrocities that beggar the mind of a normal person, is proud if what they did and would do it again given the slightest opportunity, then they are candidates for my little needle. On the other hand, a confused kid who believes he will go to Heaven and be comforted by virgins, knows his family will receive financial support, and his comrades will honour his name if he becomes a suicide bomber, is not in quite the same category. For him (given that his attempt failed) we should withold the needle and try reasoning. Certainly putting him away for long enough to reflect on his motives would not do society or him any harm. Only in cases where we catch people who are undoubtedly guilty (by their own admission) and proud of what they have done, would do it again in a heartbeat, can they be considered "beyond the pale". For these people, there is no point in giving them rights or trying them. > >> 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? I take your points, but this is wandering into crime and punishment and that is a larger and more subtle landscape. I'm confining my comments to fanatics who are dedicated to our destruction and bringing down everything we strive for, including our ideals and aspirations. People whowould scoff at "proving their innocence" because they believe they have done no wrong. Quite the cintrary. They are proud of their actions. And I don't think punishment is the motivation. I don't want them punished, I want them removed. > >>> 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". I am not talking about "punishing the innocent", Howard. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Feb 2010 19:18 Alistair 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. > Thank you Alistair, I appreciate your graciousness. I promise you I am not vacillating here. It is complex, and discussions in the past have been about crime and punishment. I don't see this in those terms. Inhumanity is beyond crime in my book. >> >> >>> 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. I guess that is getting to the nub of the thread. If the enemy is completely opposed to everything we hold dear, and they despise and vow to bring down our system, all of that can be seen as a clash of two cultures and may provide a reason to go to war. We would rather it didn't come to that, but with some people, there is no option. That is a sad reality and has been throughout history. However, when they prosecute that war by means that are so awful, cowardly and despicable that it outrages humanity, then I believe we don't need to afford them consideration that we would to people who did not resort to such means. If we don't draw a line, then there is no point in having rights for ANYBODY. We should just revert to the guy with the biggest spear calling the tune... Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Feb 2010 19:22
SkippyPB wrote: > 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. Interesting, and a very important point, Steve. It is not Islam that is offending. There are millions of muslims all over the world who were just as horrifed by 9/11 as most of us were. We need to be very careful about labelling... Pete. > > Regards, -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |