Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 19:31 Tony Harding wrote: > 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 may have had some sympathy for the unjustness of the Palestinian's situation. I certainly would have been prepared to look at it in more detail before taking sides. But OBL removed any desire to do that. (I'm relating my own personal reaction because that is the only one I can be certian about. However, I think I would not be the only one on Earth who felt this way...) >> 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. Just like OBL? (Intelligent, educated, wealthy... etc.) > > 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? Answering your question, Tony... Yes, I have seen those pictures. I was also amongst the last New Zealanders conscripted and trained for VietNam. Fortunately, we never sent conscripts in the end, only professional volunteers, mainly an artillery battery. Unfortunately, it seemed to spend some of it's time dropping shells on the Americans (they claimed the Americans gave them incorrect co-ordinates; the Americans claimed they were incompetent... that's the thing about war; nobody really wins.), and the rest of it setting fire to mostly empty jungle. The young guys who were on the receiving end are just as dead as if it was the VC who did it. We were trained to shoot at targets of little Chinamen with snarling twisted faces. I was 22 at the time and not as mellow and wise as I am now. :-). I remember observing to a Maori Staff Sergeant (who had served with distinction in Malaya and Viet Nam and been decorated for his trouble), that I had nothing personal against the Chinese, and really enjoyed their food... He responded with some epithets I shan't repeat here, but it was along the lines of: "There are 50,000 of them coming over that hill and they aren't going to cook you dinner...". Happy times... Coming back to the image of the little Vietnamese girl (who I understand now works as a UN ambassador for peace)... I've tried to put myself in the place of the pilot who dropped the napalm. He is given a target, he does what he's trained to do, the target was incorrect and civilians were hit. I don't know what subsequently became of that pilot but I feel for him, just as I feel for the village and the family of the little girl. However, that, in my opinion, is NOT the same as coldbloodedly flying a civilian airliner into a civilian building (at least targeting the Pentagon made some kind of twisted sense), in a major city, without warning, or any kind of hostilities being declared. It comes down to intention and the difference between "duty" and "venomous spite". No matter how you cut it, war sucks. But Terrorism sucks even more. "...regarding the administration who ignored the warnings that bin Laden was determined to strike within the US soon?" I've seen documentaries suggesting that the raid on Pearl Harbour was known about by the Americans several days in advance of the attacks, but the people concerned didn't give credence to the reports, or simply couldn't believe it was possible or likely. I don't know what the basis is for your statement, but I would suggest that everybody has 20/20 vision with hindsight. Military Intelligence (considered by some to be an oxymoron...) is a tenuous thing.. A lot of it is about perception and personal agendas, and I'm sure you are familiar with the game of Chinese whispers. You start off with "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance" and end up with: "Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance." (Sorry for the pre-decimalization currency reference which may be lost on some people here...) Can we really beat up someone because, amidst thousands of messages and whispers, they didn't place the right weight on one that turned out to be vital? And even if the "Powers that be" HAD decided it was important, we can't really know whether any measures could or would have been taken to prevent the attack. I don't think anyone could even picture the idea of aircraft deliberately being flown into buildings and even in the (remotely unlikely) event that they had, a CAP flight over Greater New York City is not really what the people who live there would want to see.(Well, maybe little boys who enjoy seeing military jet aircraft ANY time...:-)) What are you gonna do? Shoot down an unarmed civilian airliner over Manhattan? Is that less likely to do damage? (Physical and emotional?) The point I'm trying to make is that this was a whole new ball game and it is really not fair to blame the people who might have been able to avert it, for not doing so. I don't honestly believe that ANYONE on the ground WANTED this to happen and, of course, with hindsight, it may transpire that it could have been handled better. The best we can do is learn from our mistakes and try not to repeat the blunders. Like I said before, Terrorism sucks even worse than War does. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 19:39 HeyBub wrote: > 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. I didn't know about any of this and found it very interesting. And sensible. There is absolutely no substitute for the C in C on the ground's appraisal of the situation and the actions necessary to nullify it. For myself, I'd rather have a person in control assess and do something (even if it isn't necessarily the very best thing that could have been done), than have some bureaucrat say: "Well par 12 Sub-section 26 says that you can't do that..." as the enemy is tearing down the gates.... As I mentioned in another post here, we all have 20/20 vision with hindsight. If you put someone in control you have to back that person, otherwise, don't put them there... There is a lot of eminent sense in the processes that are apparently in place in the USA. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 19:52 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <-9mdnUwGTKMj-fXWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > That President Lincoln choe to act without statuatory authority in no > wise grants similar license to any otner individual; this is a > variant of the Brooklyn Bridge defense. This seems similar to saying > that since President Nixon was pardoned for crimes he may or may not > have committed any other President doing/having done similarly is > equally exonerated. > Yes, that thought (Brooklyn Bridge, not Nixon)occurred to me too when I read it. I wondered if you'd pick up on it, Doc... :-) That calendar seems to be acquiring a number of marks lately. Maybe I better stop the medication... :-) >> 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. > > The Prize Cases decision had to do with naval blockades and seized > ships. not with the declaring of human beings to be other-than-human. > The relevance to the question of non-citizens being considered > 'persons' seems to be negligible Um...presumably there were people on the seized ships? Their rights were overridden by the President. > > [snip] > >> 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. > > If the situation involved in the deliberate murders which occurred on > Septermber 11 are not considered 'criminal' than it seems you are > dealing with a set of definitions which are completely outside those > usually employed by American jurisprudence and further establishment > of definitions relevant to the case at hand need be established before > discussion is to continue. In my view they are BEYOND criminal. The criminal justice system is designed to deal with crimes in a society, not things that are unthinkable to normal human beings. This is what I mean when I say "Beyond the pale"... > > [snip] > >> 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. > > Cite, please. Be so kind as to show where it has been determined by > the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the > Constitution is enforceable as the Supreme Law of the Land only > during such times as the President has seen fit, as 71 US 2 1866 (Ex > Parte Milligan) and 343 US 579 1952 (Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v > Sawyer) appear to deny. Your interpretation would, it seems, change > the nature of a Constutional Republic and a Government of Laws into a > Whimful Despotism. Hmmm... it certainly would, except for two things: 1. The President can ONLY overrule the Constitution (and we have to believe, as he is sworn to uphold it, that it would not be the PREFERRED action), if he declares a state of emergency. 2. The President will be held accountable for delaring a state of emergency after the crisis is over. Given those two constraints, the chance for despotism, with the President overruling the Constitution every 5 minutes to fullfil his own whims or fantasies, seems unlikely, and the Republic stays intact. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 19:58 SkippyPB wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:49:47 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> > 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..." >> > > The "framers" didn't know "enemy combatants" or internet or cell > phones or a whole host of other things. Had they, they most likely > would have included "enemy combatant" in the meaning of "criminal". There's a lot of things they MIGHT have done, Steve. They MIGHT have made provision for dealing with Terrorists who commit crimes against humanity, and chosen to include them as crininals, or reserved special treatment for them. We'll never know. Like you, I think they were wise men. But the world has moved in the intervening centuries to a state they could never have envisaged. I don't think they were "wrong", but I DO think the Constitution needs an update in the light of what transpired on 9/11. Pete. -- I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 20:48
Howard Brazee wrote: > 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. I have been trying to, Howard. I am becoming increasingly persuaded that we need different laws to deal with terrorism, and that terrorists are not entitled to the rights that "normal" criminals are. That doesn't mean we should demean ourselves by our treatement of them, but it does mean we should not afford them the refuges and loopholes that currently exist in most criminal justice systems. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |