Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Feb 2010 10:03 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:38:19 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> 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? "Decent tax-paying citizens" aren't guilty of such crimes. By definition. I don't want a government to declare us guilty without due process. You seem to be saying: Guilty non-citizens don't need due process because when they commit atrocities, it is much worse than when citizens commit atrocities. Of course, the two main reasons for due process are: 1. Make it harder to convict the innocent. 2. Make it harder for our rulers to mis-use their power. I don't see that citizenship changes these goals. >The people who did it don't even recognise the right of a US court to try >them, so why should the US? Because we are better than them. Because we don't wish to become like them. Because we are enforcing our values. Because we are a nation of laws. >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. Lots of people see things this way, including the enemy. It matters when people with power believe conditions are severe enough that the Constitution doesn't matter. That is how despots are created. >As always, I call 'em like I see 'em. I suggest you look deeper and wider. -- "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 2 Feb 2010 10:07 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:04:09 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >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. We have due process for people who plead guilty. But I want it to be a public record, not just the say-so of our fanatics. >> 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. These aren't separatable. The right to defend ourselves against false accusations isn't limited to people pre-determined to be innocent. -- "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: Anonymous on 2 Feb 2010 10:10 In article <o8egm5591r0qtld52ni3r1fbtcmo2prqrd(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:36:36 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" ><dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>> Pay attention to the point: the Constitution states, black-letter, >>> that people have rights. Such a denial of humanity has not, to the >>> best of my knowledge, been legally codified. >> >>You are right, it hasn't been. >> >>My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman >>behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of Human >>Rights. > >I have seen no evidence that there are inalienable rights. To the best of my understanding the Constitution does not speak of inalienable rights. That it speaks of rights which 'shall not be infringed' might lead to a conclusion that these rights have/can be infringed. DD
From: HeyBub on 2 Feb 2010 12:45 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> >>> The President, to the best of my knowledge, has powers enumerated by >>> the Constitution and none of these include abrogation of Amdnement >>> VI protections, ie 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall >>> enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury >>> of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been >>> committed...' >> >> Your knowledge is incomplete. As CinC, he has all the powers >> normally vested in a military leader according to the usual rules of >> war. Further, our Supreme Court validated this proposition in the >> "Prize Cases" (67 US 635) in 1862. > > This does not, by my reading, abrogate the rights enumerated by > Amendment VI; if you be]ieve it does then please cite the section and > interpretation which supports this belief. > Lincoln, on his own initative and without statutory authority, blockaded Southern ports in April 1861. It wasn't until July of that year that Congress got around to "legalizing" the president's actions. The Prize Cases affirmed that the president has the inherent authority to do as he thinks best in times of belligerency or insurrection, without regard to constitutional niceties. Consider the suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln or the internment of the Japanese by Roosevelt. But it's not just the president than can circumvent the 6th Amendment. To review, the 6th Amendment starts with "In all criminal prosecutions...." If the situation is not "criminal" in nature, the subject is not necessarily entitled to the provisions of the amendment. For example, the following can be incarcerated without benefit of one or more of the niceties given to criminals: * Juveniles, * Illegal aliens, * Carriers of infectious diseases, * Those found to be in civil or criminal contempt, * Mental health suspects, and, of course, * Enemy combatants None of these people are constitutionally entitled to an indictment by a grand jury, compulsory process to obtain witnesses in their favor, legal representation, trial by jury, and the like. They MAY have some of these techniques available by statute, but are NOT guaranteed them by the Constitution. The question is more general than the 6th Amendment: "Can the president suspend ANY provision of the Constitution in times of national emergency?" The answer is "Yes." You may not like that answer, but, in fact, every single court decision balancing the president's power in time of national emergency versus a presumed Constitutional right has come down on the side of the president. As one appellate court opined: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." The president's actions may be subject to a court's review, but the review will focus on whether there was an emergency. If the court decides the president's action was in response to an exigent circumstance, that's the end of the discussion.
From: HeyBub on 2 Feb 2010 12:49
SkippyPB wrote: >> >> 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. No. "Due process" et al are provisions that apply to "criminals." Enemy combatants are NOT criminals and, as such, are not necessarily entitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution. Had the framers meant otherwise, the 6th Amendment (for example) would have begun "In all legal proceedings...." instead of "In all criminal prosecutions..." |