Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Feb 2010 10:25 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:16:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >No, but three lefts do... sorry, cheap shot. If an enemy is defined by a >set of activities and one performs said set of activities then it becomes >difficult, if not impossible, to determine - based on activities performed >- one from one's enemy. That isn't that often how we define enemies. More often enemies are competitors who are similar to ourselves. In sports, the tendency is to use steroids because my competitors use steroids. In war, it is to use gas or bombs or whatever to win. But this discussion isn't just about winning. If we really have the bad guys in custody, then we still win by following due process. If we have the wrong guy, or just a flunky, and we punish him without due process, then our victory is lessened. We are not safer. We are not stronger. And we are not freer. >>Sound logically, but I still can't buy it... :-) >> >>Monsters ned to be stopped and if they break the rules then they exclude >>themselves from having the protection of those rules. > >'The rules'? I wonder from which edition of the game. The simple >formulation of my point is '(group) is considered to be our enemy because >they (activity)... so we will (activity), too!' Where's the difference >between the groups? The difference is in some other area than morality. Winning via being bigger and tougher is still winning, even if we forfeit on the morality front. >>I guess there is a bit of monster in me somewhere because it doesn't bother >>my conscience one jot or tittle to write this. :-) > >Writing about it is one thing, Mr Dashwood... *doing* is another. A >favorite tactic I've seen employed is 'Well, what if you have an enemy >prisoner whom you know to have information that will lead to deaths unless >you perform (horrid action)?' > >My response is 'I try to live my life so as not to find myself in such a >situation... and were it to happen I would seek the aid and experience of >those more skilled in such behaviors than I.' Also - if evidence repeatedly shows that we can't trust that information, then there must be other reasons that we do it. -- "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 3 Feb 2010 10:30 In article <ALqdnR6KPOf7f_XWnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >>> 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 > >The Prize Cases had nothing to do with naval blockadesper se. It focused >solely on whether the president had an inherent authority to order a >blockade (instead of merely closing the ports). Cite, please. Your assertions appear to be contrary to fact as found in http://supreme.justia.com/us/67/635/case.html : --begin quoted text: U.S. Supreme Court Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 2 Black 635 635 (1862) Prize Cases 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 Syllabus 1. Neutrals may question the existence of a blockade, and challenge the legal authority of the party which has undertaken to establish it. 2. One belligerent, engaged in actual war, has a right to blockade the ports of the other, and neutrals are bound to respect that right. 3. To justify the exercise of this right, and legalize the capture of a neutral vessel for violating it, a state of actual war must exist, and the neutral must have knowledge or notice that it is the intention of one belligerent to blockade the ports of the other. --end quoted text The logic which concludes that a syllabus which mentions 'blockade' in each and every sentence 'is not about blockades, per se', would be very interesting to examine. Please present it. > >> >> [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. > >I can't imagine why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept that >just because something is a violation of a criminal statute that the actor >has to be treated as a criminal. That is not my difficulty. My difficulty is your attempt to claim that what you call an 'actor' is not, under legal consideration, a human, and as such is entitled to Constitutional protections specifically established for such. Illegal aliens can be treated as criminals >or face civil deportation - the decision regarding which is discretionary >with ICE. The German saboteurs who landed in Long Island could have been >dealt with under the criminal law as, I guess, illegal aliens, but were >prosecuted instead via military tribunals. Carrying a gun into a secure area >of an airport may subject the owner to a criminal sanction, but 99% of the >time a civil fine is levied instead. > >Point is, not everybody who commits a heinous act is necessarily entitled to >be treated as a criminal. > > >> >> [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. [snip of arguments counter to court decisions] >Nevertheless, you are correct, the Constitution IS the supreme law of the >land (and treaties made pursuant thereto). Thank you for acknowledging Article VI, sentence 2. > >The Constitution, under Article II, in naming the president CinC, vests >unfettered and absolute rights to the office of president in times of >national emergency. Further, it is the president alone who determines when a >national emergency exists and to what degree. Cite, please. According to http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii the words 'national', 'emergency' or 'emergencies' do not appear. You do not appear to be citing black-letter law of the Constitution and it might be interesting to read the decision of the Supreme Court which caused you to come to this conclusion. > >As to how that came to be, consider the Prize Cases. Specifically the part >that says the President "is not only authorized but bound to resist force by >force" without waiting for legislative approval. As noted previously the Prize Cases were about blockades, considered to be actions of force and war. Note the wording is 'bound to resist by force', not 'permitted to suspend any portion of the Supreme Law of the Land which might be dictated by Executive whim'. [snip] >It's obvious, therefore, that if the president can act without legislative >approval (Prize Cases) and cannot be gainsaid by the courts (Martin), then >he can do pretty much as he damn well pleases. It is also obvious that in the absence of opposing forces a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter one, that the sun rotates around the earth and that if one man can dig a certain-sized hole in ten hours then ten men can dig the same hole in one hour. Studying more than the most rudimentary physics, astronomy, time-and-labor management and - to tie this all together - Constitutional law might prove other 'obvious' conclusions to be equally as wrong. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Feb 2010 10:36 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:31:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Like I said before, Terrorism sucks even worse than War does. How so? War uses terrorism as a weapon as well. It seems that terrorism is a weapon used by those who aren't powerful enough to fight mano a mano. In the first half of the history of the U.S., we supported the insurgents in most every revolution. In the second half, we supported the establishment in most every revolution. I guess when we are the establishment, establishment is good. Every state currently defines the people it fights against as terrorists. That's the code word to indicate that they are the good guys and the enemy is the bad guys. Then they go out and war against the villages supporting the enemy - bombing them and spreading terror among those civilians. Terror created by the establishment is "war". Terror created by the revolutionaries is "terrorism". The former is good, the latter is bad. As defined by the establishment. -- "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 3 Feb 2010 10:44 In article <UKadnc3GWuTvRPXWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com 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. >> > >I don't disagree with you about the lasting effects of the Punic wars; I >would expect the same deference on matters legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm >not an expert - I had only one course in ConLaw in law school. But the >principles contained therein permeate to almost all other branches. In >simple terms: > >The Constitution most certainly does state that people have rights. >Specifically: >* The people have a right to peaceably assemble (#1) You missed freely exercise religion, have unabridged freedom of speech and petition the government. >* The people have a right to keep and bear arms (#2) You missed Amendment III... and we *all* know how many cases have been brought under that one! >* The people have a right to be secure against unreasonable search and >seizure (#4) You missed something about warrants not being issued except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation *and* particular description of places searched and persons/things seized... no 'fishing expeditions' >* Double jeopardy (#5) > >That's about it. You missed something about self-incrimination and the due process of law here... but I think I am beginning to see a pattern. > >Criminals have these rights and a few more: > >* Indictment by grand jury (#5) >* Self-incrimination (#5) >* Due process (#5) >* Deprived of life, liberty, or property outside the law(#5) group who, in the Preamble, ordained and established the Constitution) but are extended in that they apply to 'No person'... blac >* Public jury trial (#6) >* Confront witnesses (#6) >* Obtain witnesses (#6) >* Have an attorney (#6) > >Note that "the people" do not have the rights in the second list, only >criminals. If 'a person' is a subset of 'people' and a law begins with 'no person shall' then it is is permissible for 'people' to do so? It seems the opposite is true. The pattern I see is that more study is in order... did you know that the Constitution has more than six Amendments and a bit of a body of legal decisions as part of Its composition? DD
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Feb 2010 10:52
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:52:43 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >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"... So when someone is accused of a crime "unthinkable to normal human beings", he should not be accorded with due process. I don't claim to be an expert on what is unthinkable to normal human beings, but there is a wide variety of crimes committed that are beyond what I could possibly consider. It is quite possible that I could be accused of such a crime. If so, I would do everything I could do to prove my innocence. Fortunately the legal system here allows me to defend myself. I am assuming that "beyond the pale" doesn't apply to people whose skin isn't as pale as mine, but applies to that heinous crime that was committed by the local businessman in his off-time as well. -- "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 |