Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 9 Feb 2010 21:38 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > 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. I never said it, Doc. You are responding to the wrong poster. I have nothing further to add to this discussion. Pete. > > [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 -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: HeyBub on 10 Feb 2010 12:40 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> Had you taken such a course you would know that it doesn't matter >> what the Constitution says. The only thing that counts is what the >> Constitution means. And what the Constitution means is solely >> determined by the courts. > > If taking such a course would make me appear to be completely and > utterly ignorant of the black-letter imperatives of Article III, > Section 2, then one's education might have been the better for having > missed it. > > 'In all other cases before mentioned (ed. note.: including 'all cases, > arising in law and equity, arising under this Constitution') he > Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and > fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the > Congress shall make.' > > So... what regulation, applicable to Amendments V and VI, has the > Congress made which renders a human being a non-person? > Congress was not involved. The 5th and 6th Amendments (in the main) apply to CRIMINAL prosecutions. I'll say it again: People designated as enemy combatants are not subject to the criminal law. If not subject to the criminal law, they do not get the rights accorded those who are. For the life of me, I can't understand why you are having such a hard time grasping this simple concept. It's just as well, I suppose, that you never had a formal introduction to law - you'd have failed it miserably. On the other hand, you'd fit right in with the current administration - perhaps as Deputy Attorney General or White House Counsel.
From: Anonymous on 10 Feb 2010 15:10 In article <m213n5pli3ktjp0ct1qt1i7qv7c9kms3at(a)4ax.com>, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:42:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <n9g0n55ck07goamdlkvtiig7a3asab73lo(a)4ax.com>, >>SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >>>On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:31:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>>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.' >>> >>>The government got away with it during WWII mainly because there >>>wasn't much flow of information and people just didn't know. >> >>The government of the United States of America did not, to the best of my >>knowledge, have an equivalent of the Wansee Conference nor the purposes >>which were stated in said Conference. If you have evidence to the >>contrary then, by all means, produce it; if not then consider the thread >>Godwin'd. > >Just because the US Government didn't have an equivalent to the Wansee >Conference doesn't make what they did during WWII any less deplorable. That there was no US Government equivalent to the Wannsee Conference makes the internment of civilians during that conflict as fundamentally different as is the different in cutting open a person's belly in order to make sure they offer less resistance to acts of violence and cutting open a person's belly in order to cure a disease so that they might continue to live. [snip] >You can't tell me there wasn't some congressional committee or >presidential group that didn't talk about or at lest give approval to >the FBI for rounding up the Japanese Americans or approve and/or plan >the importation of Germans and Italians for the purposes of interment >in US prisons from the various Latin American countries they came >from. I can tell you a variety of things about which I have no evidence. I *cannot* tell you - nor you me, from what I read above - that the US had a policy, a goal or a telos even vaguely similar to those finally codified in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference. DD
From: Anonymous on 10 Feb 2010 15:21 In article <FIqdnaFCRL4Icu_WnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> >>> Had you taken such a course you would know that it doesn't matter >>> what the Constitution says. The only thing that counts is what the >>> Constitution means. And what the Constitution means is solely >>> determined by the courts. >> >> If taking such a course would make me appear to be completely and >> utterly ignorant of the black-letter imperatives of Article III, >> Section 2, then one's education might have been the better for having >> missed it. >> >> 'In all other cases before mentioned (ed. note.: including 'all cases, >> arising in law and equity, arising under this Constitution') he >> Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and >> fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the >> Congress shall make.' >> >> So... what regulation, applicable to Amendments V and VI, has the >> Congress made which renders a human being a non-person? >> > >Congress was not involved. The 5th and 6th Amendments (in the main) apply to >CRIMINAL prosecutions. The Vth stats, clearly and unambiguously, how 'No person' shall be treated, the VIth states what 'the accused' will enjoy. Final request, what regulations do you believe render a human being a non-person? > >I'll say it again: People designated as enemy combatants are not subject to >the criminal law. Repetition adds no veracity. As the laws apply to all people they only do not apply to non-persons; indicate where or how, in law, ths status of non-person can be made to apply and you might have made your point. [snip] >For the life of me, I can't understand why you are having such a hard time >grasping this simple concept. It is uite simple. The Constitution is Law and Law is (outside of those arriving on tablets from mountainsides or out of the mouths of prophets) are written by humans for humans. You claim that doing something You Don't Like takes away the status of humanity and I say that as far as I understand United States Law there is no such thing. >It's just as well, I suppose, that you never >had a formal introduction to law - you'd have failed it miserably. Wrong on both counts... that might be the reason I've asked the one simple question of 'when is a person not a human?' that you cannot answer and that causes your argument to seem less legal and more emotional. DD
From: Anonymous on 10 Feb 2010 15:25
In article <7tekgnF8hhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> 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. > >I never said it, Doc. You are responding to the wrong poster. My error and apologies for the misattribution, Mr Dashwood... such things have happened, I've heard, on UseNet, at times. > >I have nothing further to add to this discussion. THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE SMALL COURTSY OF TRIMMING THE POST?!? (Sorry... I've passed through too many postings where the (n) pages of quoted mateial, nothing new, on to the next reflex has kicked in, the annoyance sometimes leaks out. DD |