Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 14:01 On 01/30/10 08:40, Pete Dashwood 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. But no one swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the right to wear loudly colored shirts. :) > 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 don't see it as "including" bad guys into our group so much as a nation's stating their beliefs and their methods. If we make war on someone we just want to defeat them, don't care about reforming them. > 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... :-) Yeah, probably. :) Same here.
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Feb 2010 14:09 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:49:47 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> 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. One argument I've seen used is that terrorists are not "enemy combatants". The protections afforded by the Constitution have been determined by the Supreme court to be addressed to "people". >Had the framers meant otherwise, the 6th Amendment (for example) would have >begun "In all legal proceedings...." instead of "In all criminal >prosecutions..." "Legal proceedings" is awfully vague. -- "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 14:10 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:49:02 -0500, Tony Harding <tharding(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >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? "None dare call it treason". Winners define the rules. -- "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: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 14:27 On 01/29/10 09:10, Pete Dashwood wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> Tony Harding wrote: >>> On 01/21/10 17:45, Pete Dashwood wrote: >>> >>> <snip> > >> All of us could be dead within the next 10 minutes... it is only >> probabilities. >> >> I wrote an article about this for a magazine column called "The Sharp >> Point" here a few months back. It was intended to help people dealing >> with loss and I had some very nice emails about it from people I >> never met. > > It just so happens that the Webmistress (her term, not mine... :-)) of the > Magazine (Bravado), decided she would put up a sample of my column, and > guess which one she chose? :-) > > Go to www.bravado.co.nz ..click "About us" then click on my profile. > > The latest edition has an article about "Keeping up with the Joneses" which > is the first "funny" one I've tried. Being amusing in print is really not > easy. > > If any of you are into art and literature, you might enjoy Bravado. It costs > around $35 a year (3 issues, probably moving to 4 soon) and we will mail > world wide. You can subscribe through the Web Site (Pay Pal) and we really > need the money:-) It is a non-profit organization and just as well, because > it is certainly turning out that way. Without funding from Creative New > Zealand (like all the similar publications in NZ) we couldn't survive. Just read your article, Pete, and enjoyed it. Re: good & bad and who "cares" about something, I was reminded of something I heard years ago re: evolution: Nature's not bad, just indifferent.
From: Tony Harding on 2 Feb 2010 14:29
On 01/30/10 08:15, HeyBub wrote: > 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? Good thing, too, they'd be plotting against the US. :) |