Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 7 Feb 2010 15:31 In article <riutm59a0odkjjg1kmk9qh8ve1ao64pt7m(a)4ax.com>, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:54:16 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <VLadnRgAkvMZ7vDWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: [anip] >>>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. >> > >In addition during that same time period, thousands of Japanese >Americans were rounded up and interred for no other reason than being >Japanese. It also included Aleuts in Alaska. It was wrong then, It >is wrong now. Canada also did this in violation of their >constitution. It took until 1988 for the US Government to apologize >and make restitution to the families of those interred. .... and as long as you want to Godwin this thread into oblivion then I'd appreciate a citation of anything which occured during that period of internment which addressed and prpopsed a Final Solution for said Japanese, Aleuts, Germans and Italians. To the best of my knowledge there was no policy of stating that persons of such status to be 'unMensch', as certain folks in this thread appear to propose for a condition as nebulous as 'terrorist'. If anyone, anywhere, can find an equivalent of an American Wannsee Conference then I'm more than willing to see this discussion cast into an entirely different light... but until then it seems to be more of the 'We don't like what You do so We'll do to You the opposite of some of that which is essential to making Us We.' DD
From: Anonymous on 8 Feb 2010 06:22 In article <7t94ddFhujU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> 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. No, Mr Dashwood. A crime does not get a punishment, a person lawfully convicted in a fair trial is subject to one. This is why 'theft' is not in prison but 'people convicted for stealing stuff' are. [snip] >OK, last post. (a bugle sounds in the distance... :-)) > >1. People who proudly proclaim responsibility for crimes against civilians >that most of us couldn't even imagine, do not need to "defend their >innocence", and there is no need for us to provide a process whereby they >can. They are NOT innocent and they DON'T WANT to be seen as innocent, so >why waste time and resources? Because doing otherwise would make us more like Them and Less like the Us we try to be. [snip] >2. I believe there is a level of action that is way above a "felony" (just >as a "felony" supersedes a "misdemeanour" and the justice system recognizes >this in most civilized countries.). I would like to see the justice system >updated to deal with such "supercrime", and part of that update would be >that people guilty of it do not receive the rights that people NOT guilty of >it do. There would be one penalty; humane execution. > >I realise these are very radical ideas but I believe they are worth >exploring and have attempted to do so by interaction in this forum. Radical ideas? These are nothing, Mr Dashwood, compared with the common 'Lock 'em in a room with the surviving relatives' school of 'justice' that's been expressed in many a saloon. As it creates special classes of human beings it is about as worthy of discussion as its converse; who would say 'He invented a Universal Antibiotic, he doesn't have to obey traffic laws'. > >I can see that most people see it as an attack on Human Rights (which, >ironically, I am a very staunch defender of...) and some very valid issues >have been raised about the pitfalls that could be found in such a system. >(Like, how do you decide what is "beyond the Pale"?) 'Beyond the pale' - as curious a legal term I've seen - might be as simple as decrerasing the number of individuals who fall under the rubric, rights, priveleges and considerations to be granted to any other Human Being'... .... and if that's the case, Mr Dashwood, you - and others less civil, granted, but of equal bent - are helping Them win every day. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 8 Feb 2010 11:42 On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:22:48 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>> Different crimes get different punishments. Everybody agrees upon >>> that. > >No, Mr Dashwood. A crime does not get a punishment, a person lawfully >convicted in a fair trial is subject to one. This is why 'theft' is not >in prison but 'people convicted for stealing stuff' are. That was my quote. While my grammar was lacking, I expect my meaning was clear. -- "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 8 Feb 2010 11:46 On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:22:48 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >'Beyond the pale' - as curious a legal term I've seen - might be as simple >as decrerasing the number of individuals who fall under the rubric, >rights, priveleges and considerations to be granted to any other Human >Being'... Here's a nice article: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm I agree with the point you made earlier - there are *lots* of ways people have defined "beyond the pale", so it's better off defining each crime and expected punishment. >... and if that's the case, Mr Dashwood, you - and others less civil, >granted, but of equal bent - are helping Them win every day. Bin Laden's strategy worked quite 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
From: Howard Brazee on 8 Feb 2010 12:15
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:55:10 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >The government got away with it during WWII mainly because there >wasn't much flow of information and people just didn't know. That was one reason. But at various times, people have had different standards for people who don't appear to be like them. Even then, a far higher percentage of Japanese Americans were interred than German Americans or Italian Americans. It helps to know though, because the battle against injustice is a duty that we all need to partake of. When we lose that battle, we lose not only our nation, we lose ourselves. -- "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 |