Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: SkippyPB on 2 Feb 2010 13:27 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:04:09 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >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. > Do the names Hermann Goering, Hans Frank, Whilhelm Frick and Rudolf Hess mean anything to you? Very proud guys who never had any remorse for what they did. They had their day in court. It was called the Nuremberg War Crime Trials. Due process and all. Imagine that. >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. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 13:37 On 02/02/10 09:52, Howard Brazee 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. Therefore, > I believe I have an obligation to work at making sure that the rights > that I value are accepted by those in power. Especially those in > power who represent me and mine. > >> I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring. >> >> While this is not a strong legal case, it is nonetheless, how I personally >> feel about it. >> >> (Actually, I wish I didn't feel that way, but the images of those burning >> towers and people jumping off them, haunts me. It cannot be allowed to >> happen and giving rights to the people who did it (and are proud of having >> done it) just goes right against the grain. Whatever chance there may once >> have been of me having any sympathy for their cause, evaporated when I saw >> the means they employed.) > > I don't know that I ever had any sympathy for their cause. But I > also am aware that every nation has committed similar actions, killing > innocent people for their causes. Thank you, Howard, one has only to look at the no. of Vietnamese dead as a result of the US war there after the French bailed, or the no. of Iraqis killed since 2003, ... IMHO as intelligent, educated adults, we must take a step back to see the whole picture and to reply with our heads, not our hearts. Pete, have you seen any of the photographs of past horrors inflicted on various populations by the US, e.g., the young girl in VN whose village had been napalmed? How about the wholesale use of Agent Orange to defoliate a country? I agree, the visions of 911 are horrific; but nothing we haven't seen before at our own hands. Any special feeling regarding the administration who ignored the warnings that bin Laden was determined to strike within the US soon?
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 13:40 On 02/02/10 12:49, HeyBub wrote: > 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..." Bzzt, no, it's "criminal" vis a vis "civil" proceedings, just as "due process" refers to criminal proceedings, not criminals, which requires a conviction of some sort to be described as such.
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 13:49 On 01/31/10 17:30, Pete Dashwood 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". Indeed! > 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. Have you had any thoughts regarding people like Menachem Begin, who, as a member of the Irgun, blew up enemy forces (the British) back in the 1940's while working for Israel's statehood, who later became high ranking govt officials?
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 13:55
On 02/02/10 12:55, HeyBub 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. > > Yes. The conventions and protocols cover those aiding the war effort but not > in the carrying of arms: aid workers, construction workers building > fortifications, civilian truck drivers carrying war material, workers in > armaments plants, and so on. Also defined are those civilians who are > hastily organized into a defense militia to repel and invasion. The > protocols even go so far as to describe non-belligerent government workers > such as police and firemen, letter carriers, etc. > > From the German's perspective, members of the French Resistance were > unlawful enemy combatants. Yup, exactly as OBL was considered to be a Freedom Fighter back in the 1980's when he was killing Russians, but now he's a terrorist because he kills Americans. One important point regarding WW II and the French Resistance fighters - Germany lost, thus history calls the French heroic resistance fighters. The history books would be different, of course, if the Germans had prevailed. |