If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 21, 2:39 am, Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...

Does your newsreader support threading?

Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.

I call 'malarky'.

"Read and delete" is not normal behavior. The first problem with it is
that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Among other
things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently
enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that,
written records. To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
one or the other.

That is one of many reasons why I prefer the Google interface to any
newsreader.

However, there is still no excuse for not quoting sufficient material
or summarizing it, to establish the context of your own remarks.

Consider, for instance, that many times more than one issue
will be addressed in the preceding article. It is clear to you
what parts you are addressing, but not necessarily any one
else.

It is just a matter of that all too uncommon commodity, common
courtesy.

One nice thing about having the written records is that I am sometimes
able to make a useful contribution to a long-dead thread. ...

Yet another reason why I like Google.


I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. Either arrange to use
a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow
some of my postings. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.


Ordering other people to compensate for your lack of nettiquette
is one clear way to flag yourself as a road hog on the information
superhighway.

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 21, 2:39 am, Bill in Detroit wrote:

[snoipped for brevity]

To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
one or the other. After all, how can you hold a grudge if you can't
remember who you are mad at and can't look it up, either?

LOL...thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

r

If this is global warming...
 

This article makes a interesting read
Rod

http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/col.../?id=110009693

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s,
it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for
fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000
people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures
had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward
across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in
history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to
A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of
the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to
1850, the Little Ice Age.

If this is global warming...
 

Doug Miller wrote:

With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.

Suit yourself. Most folks quote enough of the message that they're
responding to that their readers don't need to go digging through previous
messages to see what they meant. It's simple courtesy to avoid imposing this
inconvenience on others.

I agree. I may or may not remember the original post when a new message comes
in - often many days after the original.

BTW Doug, you and I may disagree on many things but I heartily endorse your
sig line. Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

OTOH, it's been said that people get the government they deserve. I must have
been really bad in a previous incarnation :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

If this is global warming...
 

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.

Suit yourself. Most folks quote enough of the message that they're
responding to that their readers don't need to go digging through previous
messages to see what they meant. It's simple courtesy to avoid imposing this
inconvenience on others.

I agree. I may or may not remember the original post when a new message comes
in - often many days after the original.

BTW Doug, you and I may disagree on many things but I heartily endorse your
sig line.

That sig line was prompted by the SCOTUS decision in Kelo vs. New London.

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right. OTOH, they blew it
big-time IMO when they ruled that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Speech
Suppression law was constitutional. [What part of "Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" did they have a hard
time understanding, anyway??]

OTOH, it's been said that people get the government they deserve. I must have
been really bad in a previous incarnation :-).

You and me both. I suspect that neither one of us will ever be completely
happy with *any* President -- let alone the *same* one. g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

"todd" writes:

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular
misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion
held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled
by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.

Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:

OPI never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And
OPthe deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.

Jim If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
Jim biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
Jim rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
Jim wrong.

MeI doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
MeThey also love to be first with groundbreaking research.

Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.

Heaven knows that the public has thousands of popular misconceptions,
and scientists really don't consider taking a position that differs
from the common misconceptions on alien abduction, reincarnation,
ghosts, ESP, flat earth, etc. to be "groundbreaking." Do you really
consider a "UFO's don't exist" paper to be groundbreaking? Hardly.

It is, however, groundbreaking to provide strong evidence that
assumptions the majority of scientists hold is wrong. And as I said -
scientists LOVE to be able to do this. But the science has to hold up.
Otherwise you end up with Cold Fusion.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

If this is global warming...
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:51:02 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote:

"todd" writes:

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular
misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion
held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled
by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.

Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:

OPI never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And
OPthe deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.

Jim If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
Jim biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
Jim rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
Jim wrong.

MeI doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
MeThey also love to be first with groundbreaking research.

Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.

It may be clear to you, but to most of the rest of us "a minority
opinion in scientific journals" is not a "popular misconception".

Perhaps you should write what you mean instead of expecting the rest
of us to read your mind?

Heaven knows that the public has thousands of popular misconceptions,
and scientists really don't consider taking a position that differs
from the common misconceptions on alien abduction, reincarnation,
ghosts, ESP, flat earth, etc. to be "groundbreaking." Do you really
consider a "UFO's don't exist" paper to be groundbreaking? Hardly.

No, I would consider that to be "debunking popular misconceptions".

It is, however, groundbreaking to provide strong evidence that
assumptions the majority of scientists hold is wrong. And as I said -
scientists LOVE to be able to do this. But the science has to hold up.
Otherwise you end up with Cold Fusion.

Be that as it may, the fact that the majority of scientists believe
something doesn't make it a "popular misconception" and proving them
wrong does not constitute "debunking". I think that most physicists
would look at you like you were nuts if you described Einstein's
initial paper on General Relativity as "debunking popular
misconceptions".

If this is global warming...
 

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"todd" writes:

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of
"popular
misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken
notion
held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets
dispelled
by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.

Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:

OPI never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And
OPthe deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.

Jim If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
Jim biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
Jim rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
Jim wrong.

MeI doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular
misconceptions.
MeThey also love to be first with groundbreaking research.

Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.

Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the
dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists.
If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean.
I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular
misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they
aren't.

todd

If this is global warming...
 

Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.


I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals. In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
I'm saying.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

If this is global warming...
 

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.

There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
"saboteurs".

In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.

But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
I'm saying.

That's a little over the top (and I think you know that, really). There is NO
assumption that "anyone" can be declared an enemy combatant, except on your
part. If you want to ensure that you're not regarded as an enemy combatant,
then don't behave like one; i.e., don't carry arms on a battlefield involving
U.S. military personnel while wearing civilian clothing, don't carry bombs in
the trunk of your car or in your shoes, etc.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:58:46 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.


I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals. In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
I'm saying.

The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
President.

If this is global warming...
 

In article ,
Bill in Detroit wrote:
...snipped...
.................... With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.

Bill


Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?


--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org

If this is global warming...
 

"todd" writes:

Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.

Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the
dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists.
If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean.
I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular
misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they
aren't.

While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases
"popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.

If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that
the entire world thinks that person is popular.

If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that
doesn't mean the entire world watches.

If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular,
it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.

I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that
when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was
implied to be "among scientists."


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

If this is global warming...
 

If this is global warming...
 

If this is global warming...
 

Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States...".

Renata

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:17:56 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
President.

If this is global warming...
 

In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:

While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases
"popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.

If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that
the entire world thinks that person is popular.

If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that
doesn't mean the entire world watches.

If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular,
it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.

Oh, please.

I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that
when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was
implied to be "among scientists."

That wasn't at all clear -- and it still isn't. The phrase "popular
misconception" has a well-understood meaning, which is considerably at
variance with the manner in which you say you meant it.

Language has meaning. If one uses the word "black" to mean "white", or "up" to
mean "down", one can hardly blame one's readers or listeners for not
understanding.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

In article , Renata wrote:
Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States...".

A person owing "an allegiance or duty to the United States" would be a
U.S. citizen. That phrase may encompass legal resident aliens as well.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote:

"todd" writes:

Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in
scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.

Is it my turn to sigh for effect? Please look up the word "popular" in the
dictionary. You'll see that it does not apply to a number of scientists.
If you meant something else, I suggest you use words that say what you mean.
I suggest you substitute "widely-held scientific beliefs" for "popular
misconceptions". Apparently, you believe these are synonymous, but they
aren't.

While if unqualified, popular means the masses, but in many cases
"popular" is qualified by mentioning the group in question.

Then you should have so qualified it if you were going to use it.

If one is popular in High School, that doesn't mean that
the entire world thinks that person is popular.

If I said a cartoon was popular among pre-schoolers, that
doesn't mean the entire world watches.

If I was at a conference, and said a partitular topic was popular,
it would be clear that I was referring to those attending the conference.

I acept your criticism, but in this case I thought in was clear that
when I said "popular" and talking about research papers, it was
implied to be "among scientists."

Clear as mud.

If this is global warming...
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0500, Renata
wrote:

Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States...".

You seem to be ignoring that pesky "§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military
commissions
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter
shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this
chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful
enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001."

Note that pesky word "alien", which is defined in the act as
"ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States."

You are also ignoring that pesky "subject to this chapter", as in "Any
person ****subject to this chapter***** who, in breach of an
allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally
aids an enemy
of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy,
shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter
may direct."

I find it interesting that you excised "subject to this chapter" in
your version of that statement. "Any person subject to this chapter"
is quite different from "any person".

Sorry, but the jurisdiction of military commissions clearly does not
extend to US citizens.

The full text of the bill as signed may be found at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr. txt.pdf.


Renata

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:17:56 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
President.

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 21, 9:17 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:58:46 -0800, Larry Blanchard



wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals. In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
I'm saying.

The assertion that "Bush can hold anyone (including US citizens)" is
incorrect. The law in question is the "military commissions act" and
it explicitly _excludes_ US citizens. The assertions to the contrary
are based on a very early draft of the legislation, not on the final
version that was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the
President.

This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.

If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
the government to show evidence that they are not
a citizen.

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.

There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
"saboteurs".

And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
to determine their status.


In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.

Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
execution of accused spies has been prohibitted internationally
since at least the Hague Conventions early int eh 20th century.

ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
citing the relevant documents.

Thus for a couple of hundred years now people
in general have accepted the basic truth that
the notion that "some people don't have a right
to trial" in fundamentally illogical as, absent trial
it is not possible to determine who is or is not
disqualified. It would appear that logic escapes
you.




But it's the assumption that anyone, repeat ANYONE, can be declared an enemy
combatant that really bothers me. I guess I'll have to start watching what
I'm saying.

That's a little over the top (and I think you know that, really). There is NO
assumption that "anyone" can be declared an enemy combatant, except on your
part. If you want to ensure that you're not regarded as an enemy combatant,
then don't behave like one; i.e., don't carry arms on a battlefield involving
U.S. military personnel while wearing civilian clothing, don't carry bombs in
the trunk of your car or in your shoes, etc.


The ssue is how does the US determine who has
or has not engaged in an act of perfidy.

Bush simply declared that all captives in Afghanistan,
had done so. That was morally, legally, and inexcusibly
wrong,

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 16, 12:38 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
...

Now all you have to do is:

a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date).


To the contrary, the contribution of CO2 to
the green house effect is well-established.
To prove that raising the concentration of CO2
in the atmosphere will not cause global warming,
would require that you disprove the established
spectroscopic properties of the common atmospheric
gases, or that you disprove conservation of energy.

Either of those, might earn you a Nobel prize.

At issue is what other factors affect global climate
change and how. The notion that it is 'unproven'
that CO2 does, is just plain asinine.

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

In article .com, wrote:

This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.

If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
the government to show evidence that they are not
a citizen.

Sure we can. That's why we have the Second Amendment.

Really. I'm quite serious about that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is
not to preserve the ability to hunt, or to go target shooting. And it's only
tangentially about crime, or repelling invasion. What it's really about is
this: the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many pieces of
paper, and their guarantees of rights only so much hot air, unless We The
People possess the means to *compel* the government to abide by them.

And we do.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

In article . com, wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long
as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.

There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
"saboteurs".

And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
to determine their status.

Cite, please.


In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's
been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.

Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
execution of accused spies has been prohibitted internationally
since at least the Hague Conventions early int eh 20th century.

Cite, please.

ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
citing the relevant documents.

And ISTR that you were unable to provide *relevant* citations when challenged
to do so.

Try again.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

Bruce Barnett wrote:

Including context to a response is really important if you want to
make a point.



This is test response #1. See my earlier message to Larry for the context.

Bill

--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.

H. P. Lovecraft


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-1, 02/22/2007
Tested on: 2/23/2007 2:35:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

If this is global warming...
 

Bruce Barnett wrote:

Including context to a response is really important if you want to
make a point.

This is test response #2. See my earlier message to Larry for the context.

Bill

--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.

H. P. Lovecraft


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-1, 02/22/2007
Tested on: 2/23/2007 2:35:48 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

If this is global warming...
 

Larry W wrote:

Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?


Larry, (etc) the timing is irrelevant. ALL servers and ALL newsreaders
that comply with published standards for newsgroup postings can
backtrack messages a considerable distance. Your own posting, to which I
am replying, carried the information necessary to backtrack 5 levels.

When you click 'reply to', the newsreader checks the Message ID of the
posting being responded to. It then includes it as part of the message
sent. Each message points backward to where it came from. This, not
timing, is what allows a message thread to be reconstructed.

In most newsreaders you can click something along the line of 'View /
Headers / All' in order to see what I am posting below. (Exact menu
headings are likely to vary as this is part of a litigious area of
programming known as "Look & Feel") It is telling that Robatoys' posting
does not even have the Reference header, while all posts below his do.

The reasoning behind this is that things can taken very different paths
around the Internet and a response can lag one actually submitted before
it by hours or even days (some years ago (~10) I had a posting take
three days to arrive in a newsgroup). Clearly, timing would not be a
good way to reconstruct a thread. So, like each packet of data on the
internet, news postings carry the necessary threading information with them.

The internet, essentially, never forgets. (
http://www.archive.org/index.php ). I shudder to think of some of the
old posts I have made that are still floating around out there just
waiting for someone to play connect the dots with them. I need to put
those 'six degrees of separation' between my old self and my new one.

Given that old Usenet postings never die (that is what Google bought a
few years ago), I take a dim view of a newsreader that cannot follow a
thread back just two steps.

Bear with me here as I am doing this from memory of reading done perhaps
8-10 years ago and I am writing at roughly 2:30 in the morning.
-----------

IIRC then, this would be the threading path for your posting to me:

.com

t
my message


Your message had a message ID of:


and, by the way, your reference header (like mine) indicates that your
reader is aware of the 4 levels in the thread ahead of your posting (the
level you are at is #5 in that scheme of things)

Barnetts message, following on yours is:
.com

t
my message
your posting

Notice that Barnetts' message directly referenced yours by including it
in the header called, appropriately enough "References"?

Robatoys' original post has no references. All posts subsequent to his,
do. Pete C. was the first to reply and his References header contains
the information leading back exactly one level:

.com

which, surprise, surprise belongs to Robatoys' message which had a
Message ID of
.com

You can check this for yourself.

The first copy of Barnetts message below yours carried the Message ID of


while the second copy (at the same thread level) was assigned this
message ID


Although they contain identical text and hit the server only one minute
apart, a reply to one of Barnetts messages will not be connected to the
other because the Message ID numbers are different. In fact, I'm going
to post to each of them and you will be able to verify that the
Reference lines are different for each and that the difference is his
unique Message ID identifier.

Okay ... those messages are on the server now, I can send this one. It
is out of time sequence ... but it will appear above those other two
because it is tied to your message by that reference line.

I hope this helps to resolve the controversy, which, really, is just one
more Usenet 'tempest in a teapot'.

This explanation of these headers and what they are used for should help
resolve what is 'normal' behavior for a news reader. It is normal for a
newsreader to have access to these headers and to be able to display the
messages to which they refer.





--
I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject
is worth a **** unless backed up with enough genuine information to make
him really know what he's talking about.

H. P. Lovecraft


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000716-1, 02/22/2007
Tested on: 2/23/2007 3:26:36 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

If this is global warming...
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:59:51 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0500, Renata
wrote:

Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States...".

-snip-
. "Any person subject to this chapter"
is quite different from "any person".

Sorry, but the jurisdiction of military commissions clearly does not
extend to US citizens.

The full text of the bill as signed may be found at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr. txt.pdf.


Perhaps you should have a chat with Mr. Padilla.

Renata

If this is global warming...
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:20:10 -0500, Renata
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:59:51 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:45:44 -0500, Renata
wrote:

Except for that pesky "any person" phrasing.
Not to mention "any person... in breach of an allegiance or duty to
the United States...".

-snip-
. "Any person subject to this chapter"
is quite different from "any person".

Sorry, but the jurisdiction of military commissions clearly does not
extend to US citizens.

The full text of the bill as signed may be found at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr. txt.pdf.


Perhaps you should have a chat with Mr. Padilla.

Perhaps you should have a chat with a calendar.

If this is global warming...
 

In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Larry W wrote:

Please explain how your news reader compensates when _your_ news server
receives messages in a different order than _my_ server?


Larry, (etc) the timing is irrelevant. ALL servers and ALL newsreaders
that comply with published standards for newsgroup postings can
backtrack messages a considerable distance. Your own posting, to which I
am replying, carried the information necessary to backtrack 5 levels.

When you click 'reply to', the newsreader checks the Message ID of the
posting being responded to. It then includes it as part of the message
sent. Each message points backward to where it came from. This, not
timing, is what allows a message thread to be reconstructed.

You're missing the point very badly. The point is that your newsreader is
including that context -- and then *you* are snipping it before you post.

Now -- to drive the point home -- let's see you reply to this message, WITHOUT
doing anything else, just click 'reply to' like you said -- and restore the
text that I snipped.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 22, 3:14 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.

If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
the government to show evidence that they are not
a citizen.

Sure we can. That's why we have the Second Amendment.

I agree that is potentially a vital function of the Second
Amendment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is
WHY we have it, people can vote for the same amendment
for different reasons. I also try to keep in mind that the
Iraqi population was well-armed throughout the reign
of Saddam Hussein.

Being a liberal, I'm generally opposed to gun 'control'.


Really. I'm quite serious about that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is
not to preserve the ability to hunt, or to go target shooting. And it's only
tangentially about crime, or repelling invasion. What it's really about is
this: the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many pieces of
paper, and their guarantees of rights only so much hot air, unless We The
People possess the means to *compel* the government to abide by them.

And we do.

However, don;t you agree that is a good thing to be able
to take the matter to the courts before opening fire?

Ballot box, jury, box, ammo box. Let's keep use them
in that order.

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

....

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.

There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
"saboteurs".

In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.


Cite please.

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

Bill in Detroit writes:

Doug Miller wrote:

You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...

Does your newsreader support threading?

1) there is no guarantee that the post you are responding to will
arrive on his news server before your post.

2) there is no guarantee that the post you are responding to will
EVER arrive on his news server.

In the case of 1), he will have to read your post, mark it as something
that he wants to look at again later when the context eventually arrives,
then read it again and look for the post in the thread containing the
context. Unless what you are saying is DAMN important (and is obviously so
WITHOUT knowing the context), this is Highly Unlikey (tm). It is much more
likely that you will simply be ignored.

In the case of 2), the likelihood of being ignored increases
dramatically.

If you don't care that people read what you post, then continue posting
without including any context. You'll save time by not posting at all,
though.

If this is global warming...
 

Bill in Detroit writes:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

You snipped so much context, I have *no* idea what you're referring to...

Does your newsreader support threading?

Yes, it does. It also marks as "read" articles that I've already read, and
doesn't display them again -- which is pretty much normal behavior.

I call 'malarky'.

"Read and delete" is not normal behavior.

He didn't say "read and delete". He said "read, and don't tell me about
them again". They are still on the server, and can be accessed again (with
effort, probably minimal).

The first problem with it is
that it immediately kills -any- hope of useful threading. Among other
things, this leaves you vulnerable to folks like myself who, innocently
enough, figure that you either have a good memory or, failing that,
written records. To have a full participation on Usenet, you really need
one or the other. After all, how can you hold a grudge if you can't
remember who you are mad at and can't look it up, either?


[snip]

It's also pretty much normal behavior, when following up an article, to quote
enough of it that other people know what you're talking about.

I've already addressed that above.

I won't be held accountable for reading your mind. Either arrange to use
a better set-up newsreader or accept that you won't be able to follow
some of my postings. With a properly threaded newsreader / sequential
reading, you don't need ANY quoted text. I quoted, and will continue to
quote, only the parts of a message that I am making specific response to.

Either include more context, or accept that people will just ignore
your posts. You're probably making an extra effort to delete more text,
and then making others do more work to find out why you're bothering to
post.

If this is global warming...
 

On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as long
as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.

There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies" or
"saboteurs".

And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
to determine their status.

Cite, please.

1949 Geneva Protocols. Please do us the courtesy
of READING beyond the titles before claiming
they are irrelevant.

Persons who are place hors de combat by captivity,
are protected. That doesn't mean they cannot be
tried and executed for acts of perfidy. It does mean
that the execution must be preceded by trail.

Tangentially, note that members of the regularly
constituted armed forces of a signatory nation are
always protected persons, regardless of how they
dress.


In the first
case, they should be treated humanely and visited by the Red Cross (or Red
Crescent), be able to send and receive (censored) mail, etc.. If they're
criminals, they should be entitled to a lawyer.

And in the third case, they're frequently just summarily executed. That's
been
the custom for centuries, going back (at least) to the Roman Empire.

Summary execution by the US military has been illegal
since at least early in the 19th century, and summary
execution of accused spies has been prohibited internationally
since at least the Hague Conventions early in the 20th century.

Cite, please.

Sure. But first let us do a Gedanken. Let us suppose
we are completely amoral but insist for entirely practical
purposes, that summary execution of civilian non
combatants is a crime. Now, lets see how that
works if we include your supposition that summary
execution of persons engaged in hostile acts in
civilian clothing may legally be summarily executed.
Suppose now we have a soldier wallking down one
side of the street and an MP walking on the other
side. As the MP watches, the soldier walks up to
an unarmed person in civilian clothing and shoots
him to death. The MP asks the soldier why he did
that, the soldier replies that the victim was a sabotuer.
Should the MP make an arrest or not? Does it
make a difference if the soldier tells the MP that
he saw the victim plant a bomb the previous day?

As a purely practical mater, would it not be better
to capture and try the accused saboteur?


Nor for some citations:


ARTICLES OF WAR

AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RULES AND
ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES
(April 10, 1806)

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,
That in time of war, all persons not
citizens of, or owing allegiance to,
the United States of America, who
shall be found lurking as spies in or
about the fortification or encampments
of the armies of the United States, or
any of them, shall suffer death, according
to the law and usage of nations, by sentence o
f a general courts-martial.

"By sentence of a general court martial" implies
(at least to me) that trial prior to execution was
obligatory, particularly when compared with an
earlier Article or Warthat actually does authorize
summary execution:

Articles of War, (of the Continental Congress)
June 30, 1775...

Art. XXV. Whatsoever officer or soldier
shall shamefully abandon any post
committed to his charge, or shall speak
words inducing others to do the like,
in time of an engagement, shall suffer
death immediately.


I *already* cited the Hague conventions above, I do
so again:

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV);
October 18, 1907
....
Art. 30.

A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.

...
ISTR that I have pointed this out to you before, even
citing the relevant documents.

And ISTR that you were unable to provide
*relevant* citations when challenged to do so.


No you denied (without citation) the relevancy of
the 1949 Geneva Protocols, using a circular
argument that went something like this: the due
process requirements of the Conventions do
not apply to spies or saboteurs, therefor they
may be executed without holding a hearing to
determine whether they are spies or saboteurs.


"The legal status of the detainiees, and their
entitlement to prisoner-of-war (POW) status,
if disputed, must be determined by a competent
tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention." ...
-- Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
January 16, 2002

Keep in mind that the USSC recently agreed with
me that military commissions established by
Executive Order are not competent.

Now, what do YOU have to cite?

--

FF

If this is global warming...
 

In article . com, wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:14 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
This is true so long as the Constitutional guaranteed
of the writ of habeas corpus (e.g. the "great writ" as
opposed to _Federal_ habeas) is preserved for all persons.

If it is not, then no citizen's rights are protected as no
citizen accused of being a non-citizen, can require
the government to show evidence that they are not
a citizen.

Sure we can. That's why we have the Second Amendment.

I agree that is potentially a vital function of the Second
Amendment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is
WHY we have it, people can vote for the same amendment
for different reasons. I also try to keep in mind that the
Iraqi population was well-armed throughout the reign
of Saddam Hussein.

Being a liberal, I'm generally opposed to gun 'control'.

'Gun control' means using both hands, and being able to hit your target.


Really. I'm quite serious about that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is
not to preserve the ability to hunt, or to go target shooting. And it's only
tangentially about crime, or repelling invasion. What it's really about is
this: the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many pieces of
paper, and their guarantees of rights only so much hot air, unless We The
People possess the means to *compel* the government to abide by them.

And we do.

However, don;t you agree that is a good thing to be able
to take the matter to the courts before opening fire?

Actually, I see the courts as constituting the greatest part of the threat
that the government may decide to ignore the rights we are guaranteed.

It's happening already: the Supreme Court ruled that the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance "reform" bill (which restricts certain types of political
advertising and commentary) does not violate the First Amendment. The language
of the Amendment is plain and clear -- and yet they ruled that it does not
prohibit that which it plainly, clearly does. What part of "Congress shall
make no law..." is unclear to them?

Ballot box, jury, box, ammo box. Let's keep use them
in that order.

Of course.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

In article . com, wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Even more so since the Supremes say Bush can hold anyone
(including US citizens) as long as he likes without any recourse as
long
as
he holds them outside the country.

With respect to non-uniformed armed combatants captured on the field of
battle, I think the Supremes got that one exactly right.

I don't know. To me, they either have to be POWs or criminals.

There's a third alternative: traditionally, under the law of war, armed
individuals in civilian clothes on the field of battle are called "spies"
or
"saboteurs".

And under the GC's persons accused of being such are
guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal
to determine their status.

Cite, please.

1949 Geneva Protocols. Please do us the courtesy
of READING beyond the titles before claiming
they are irrelevant.

I have done so, but as I noted the last time we discussed this, I question
whether you have.

Persons who are place hors de combat by captivity,
are protected.

That simply isn't true. Armed individuals in civilian clothing on a
battlefield are not protected persons.

That doesn't mean they cannot be
tried and executed for acts of perfidy. It does mean
that the execution must be preceded by trail.

Tangentially, note that members of the regularly
constituted armed forces of a signatory nation are
always protected persons, regardless of how they
dress.

Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
uniform or insignia.
[remainder snipped]


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

If this is global warming...
 

Doug Miller wrote:

: Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
: uniform or insignia.

So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
your assumptions.


-- Andy Barss

If this is global warming...
 

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

: Now I'm *sure* you haven't read the GC. To be protected, they must be wearing
: uniform or insignia.

So, with respect to Fred's Gedanken experiment, you would answer
that no, there is no reason to arrest the soldier who summarily
executed someone he asserts to have been an enemy combatant? This
person wasn't wearing a uniform or insignia, so isn't protected under
your assumptions.

Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is
what soldiers _do_. It's called "war".