Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 7 Feb 2010 10:27 In article <DN-dnWRymJYjyPHWnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: [snip] >Point is, only those feeding into the criminal justice system are entitled >to these constitutional protections. Thise is contradicted by the Constitution's black-letter use of the term 'no person', not 'only those feeding into the criminal justice system'. 'No Person.' Not 'No free person', not 'no enfranchised Caucasian male', not 'only folks We like'... 'No Person'. Ignoring this fact doesn't make it, nor the intent of the Founders, go away. DD
From: Anonymous on 7 Feb 2010 10:36 In article <7t3kt1Fg5kU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >> Yes. As I said, I had a course in Constitutional Law in law school >> (which is about 500 hours more of formal study than that to which you >> will admit). In this thread, however, I was concentrating on the >> notion that unlawful enemy combatants (UEC) are not subject to the >> same constitutional protections as those accused of criminal acts. > >I'm following this with interest, Jerry. > >That last sentence seems pretty much in line with what I would want to see. > >Looks like the USA has already considered the same arguments we have been >discussing here, and reached the same conclusion I did. Actually, Mr Dashwood, the USA hasn't and the discussion continues even as we continue it. Until there is a was to Constitutiionally declare a human being a non-person, so that rights which will be denied No Person can be denied, then repeating the tired saw of ''No Person' doen'st apply to the likes of *them*' is unsupported by precedent or case law. Notice how one how one respondant here has been hammering away at the black-letter law of the Constitution... and the other saying 'I took a course and this just isn't what I came away with.' > >Paraphrasing loosely: "People who are beyond the pale don't get the same >treatment as people who are not." > >Good result. That depends on who defines this 'pale', Mr Dashwood... members of the 'wrong' political party, the 'wrong' religious persuasion or who obtain sexual gratification in certain manners have all been defined that way. This is, I believe, to be avoided in *my* United States of America, period. >> That is, UECs - when so designated - fall outside the criminal law >> and the constitutional protections afforded criminals. >> > As long as there are checks in place to ensure that the label "UEC" can not >just be applied for political expediency, I reckon that's exactly how it >should be. There's the rub, Mr Dashwood... those who claim certain people aren't 'human beings' are too close, in my opinion, to those who say that those who do not worship properly are to be tolerated only if they pay a Special Tax. Not in *my* country, thank you. DD
From: Anonymous on 7 Feb 2010 10:54 In article <VLadnRgAkvMZ7vDWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Pete Dashwood wrote: >>> >>> Yes. As I said, I had a course in Constitutional Law in law school >>> (which is about 500 hours more of formal study than that to which you >>> will admit). In this thread, however, I was concentrating on the >>> notion that unlawful enemy combatants (UEC) are not subject to the >>> same constitutional protections as those accused of criminal acts. >> >> I'm following this with interest, Jerry. >> >> That last sentence seems pretty much in line with what I would want >> to see. >> Looks like the USA has already considered the same arguments we have >> been discussing here, and reached the same conclusion I did. > >Heh! > >No, the U.S. is NOT following my analysis - at least in the current >administration. And this, I'd say, is a Good Thing, for This or Any Other Administration. >For example, the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda >rights soon after he was captured. If, according to your assertion that this bomber is not subject to the rights of a person being placed under arrest, then it doesn't matter if said bomber was read the Austin telephone book, either. > >1. There is NO requirement that ANY criminal suspect be advised of his right >to remain silent. According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#The_Miranda_Warnings> this is wrong, in that 'The suspect must be properly advised of their Miranda rights. The constitutional rights safeguarded by Miranda are the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.' Now... since the Warning must be given in order for testimony taken during questioning to be valid evidence then self-incriminating pantomime is equally as well covered. [snip] >Here's another example. During WW2, the U.S. housed literally hundreds of >thousands of German and Italian POWs (there were over 100 POW camps in my >state), many of these POWs were American citizens (think dual nationality). Here's another point to consider: the black-letter law of the Constitution was followed and a State of War was declared on 8 Sep, 1941. That just, might, possibly make circumstances different than when the black-letter law of the Consttution is not followed... but that's what so much of the current rancor is about, it seems. >Not a single one ever made it to the American court system. Not one. They >were completely outside the criminal justice system. War had been declared, remember? Things are different then... and if anyone wants to trot out the tired old 'well, the machinations that followed make things just the same as if War had been declared' then one might think 'Hey, it has been nigh a decade since those machinations and all that debate... might it not be a good idea to, at some point during that decade, have followed the black-letter law and made the situation in accord with the will of the Founders?' Of course not... following the will of the Founders seems to be the *last* thing anyone wants happening. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 7 Feb 2010 11:58 On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:26:07 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >You and Howard both seem to be missing the point of my argument. > >I'm not arguing that War is OK. > >We can take it as read that it sucks. > >My point is that there can be even worse things. > >I consider Terrorism to be one of those, for the reasons I outlined. Your reasons weren't convincing. I see it that Terrorism is war waged by the have-nots, in a way that are vulnerable. Being vulnerable is quite unpleasant, even though the other guys are vulnerable to our methods of fighting war. Since we can be the victims (as well as them), this makes Terrorism even worse than the kind of war we fight. So we long for the day when we had true warriors who could feel brave and heroic when they stuck swords into the bodies of innocent civilians. -- "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 7 Feb 2010 12:04
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:37:18 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Paraphrasing loosely: "People who are beyond the pale don't get the same >treatment as people who are not." Different crimes get different punishments. Everybody agrees upon that. You say it isn't about the accused getting a right to defend their innocence. So what exactly, *is* this discussion about? What is it that you want changed? Due process is making sure the state can't punish innocent people, so it isn't due process you want to eliminate. I infer it's the punishments met out to the guilty that you wish to be changed. So Timothy McVeigh should have gotten something worse than his death penalty? Or Saddam? I agree with you that I'm missing the point you wish to make. Unless you're saying "I'm as mad as Hell, and I have no idea what to do about 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 |