|
If this is global warming...
On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
Uh, summarily executing people they believe to be enemy combatants is what soldiers _do_. It's called "war". Uh, there is no need then for the concept of 'a prisoner of war' by your logic. Goodness, man, you really stuck your foot in it this time. .. .. Unbelievable ignorance. .. .. *shaking my head in total disbelief* r---- who sometimes wonders why he even bothers. |
If this is global warming...
-- When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box. Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
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. There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts ... as you should also be able to do. 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): 000716-3, 02/23/2007 Tested on: 2/24/2007 12:22:44 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
If this is global warming...
D Smith wrote:
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). Which he didn't bother to take. 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 he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. He is free to make that minimal effort you mentioned above. He is free to sip his beer through a straw. The guy is an expert on global warming, nuclear power generation, peer review, the Geneva Convention and I've lost track of what else ... but can't recall what he said two days ago. I gave a detailed technical reason why his whining is without merit and now I am done with this thread. 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): 000716-3, 02/23/2007 Tested on: 2/24/2007 12:37:27 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
If this is global warming...
D Smith writes:
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 human effort to refetch articles already read isn't large, but in this newsgroup, with the number of postings, fetching EVERY article, and applying the killfile filters does take time - several minutes. There is no way I'm going to do it just because someone posts a one-liner with no context. I just ignore them. -- 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...
"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
... D Smith wrote: 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). Which he didn't bother to take. 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 he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. He is free to make that minimal effort you mentioned above. He is free to sip his beer through a straw. The guy is an expert on global warming, nuclear power generation, peer review, the Geneva Convention and I've lost track of what else ... but can't recall what he said two days ago. I gave a detailed technical reason why his whining is without merit and now I am done with this thread. Bill The irony of this post is hilarious. You reply to a post and actually provide enough context for the rest of us to know what you're talking about in order to reinforce that you shouldn't have to provide context for your posts. Practically everyone disagreed with you, but don't worry...you're right and everyone else is wrong. Tell you what. In the future, provide no context at all. We'll all just have to figure out what the hell you're replying to on our own. No need to trouble yourself. todd |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: 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. There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts ... as you should also be able to do. Of course I can. And perhaps you think that what you have to say is so valuable, that I should be willing and eager to inconvenience myself just so I can find out what you're talking about. I disagree. -- 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 , Bill in Detroit wrote:
D Smith wrote: 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). Which he didn't bother to take. Which I shouldn't have to, if you had bothered to include enough context to make it unnecessary. You're still missing the point, Bill -- by snipping useful context, you are taking a deliberate action (not simply an act of omission) that makes it more difficult for others to follow the gist of your posts. What is the purpose in doing that? 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 he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. Good idea. -- 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 23, 2:38 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
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. Please stop arguing from irrelevancy. Armed indviduals on the battlefield are NOT hors de combat. NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed forces. 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. Noe I'm sure you have not. Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument, he would be subject to summary execution. [remainder snipped] First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statments, then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
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". As you know, killing in battle is not execution. Mr Miller and I disagree on the morality and legality of killing prisoners in cold blood after they have been taken alive--though he also tries to evade that issue by disingenuously referring to combat. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 24, 12:22 am, Bill in Detroit wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: 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. There is no need for that. If I so desire, I can review the prior posts .. as you should also be able to do. He cannot if the previous article never made it to his server. You just do not understand how NNTP servers operate. UseNet is not a bulletin board. There is no guarantee that two people downloading from different servers will have access to the same articles, or even the same newsgroups. AFAIK, there are no longer any UseNet servers that rely on mailed tapes to exchange articles with other servers but there is still propagation delay and we also have blacklists now. You seem to think that everyone has exactly the same resources as you do, or worse, that those who do not, are not deserving of even a modicum of courtesy. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
Bill in Detroit writes:
D Smith wrote: 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). Which he didn't bother to take. So, you admit that your deliberate act of removing context makes for more work for him (or anyone else reading the thread). And from your flippant comment, it seems that you think he is lazy for not making that extra effort. Priceless. 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 he wishes, he is free to filter me completely. He is free to make that minimal effort you mentioned above. He is free to sip his beer through a straw. The guy is an expert on global warming, nuclear power generation, peer review, the Geneva Convention and I've lost track of what else ... but can't recall what he said two days ago. Or perhaps he remembers more of what he said two days ago than the single post you are responding to. You're not the only person he's engaged in discussion with.... and he's not the only one reading your responses. I gave a detailed technical reason why his whining is without merit and now I am done with this thread. Your "detailed technical reason" ignores the plain and simple fact that the original post may not yet be on a person's server, and may never get there. Obviously, his own posts should be on his server, but you're not engaged in a private conversation (if you think you are, you've picked the wrong medium), and others reading the thread will just learn to ignore you. ...which seems like a better and better idea all the time... |
If this is global warming...
Bruce Barnett writes:
D Smith writes: 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 human effort to refetch articles already read isn't large, but in this newsgroup, with the number of postings, fetching EVERY article, and applying the killfile filters does take time - several minutes. In my newsreader, a few keystrokes to get all the article headers for the current subject, or for a particular author. Yes, not much, but as you point out, it does take time. On the other hand, if *everyone* began posting with no included context, forcing readers to refetch articles by thread to discover what is being discussed, the forum would become so useless that nobody would read it and the number of posting per day would drop significantly. That would solve the problem, wouldn't it? ;-) There is no way I'm going to do it just because someone posts a one-liner with no context. I just ignore them. Not even for the wisdom of "Bill in Detroit"? [no need to answer that!] |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 24, 12:37 am, Bill in Detroit wrote:
... now I am done with this thread. Meaning, I presume, that you still have no regard for what anyone else has to say. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote: NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed forces. That's kinda the point, Fred.... No, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of summary execution. [...] Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument, he would be subject to summary execution. Since when is a barracks a battlefield? Again, non-sequitor. The topic is NOT killng in battle it is summary execution. [remainder snipped] First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statements, then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you. And then, after that, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of presenting bogus arguments. Because you have nothing but present bogus arguments and obfuscation. The issue at hand is summary execution. You have never presented a single citation to support your claim that summary execution of a spy or saboteur is permissible Why did you you snip the reference to the 1907 Hague conventions and to the Articles of War? Was that so you could continue to pretend they do not exist? -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
... Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument, he would be subject to summary execution. Since when is a barracks a battlefield? When the persons therein are being captured by enemy combatants. Historical precedents exist, though they predate the 1949 Protocols. Examples include battles at Ticonderoga and Detroit, as I recall. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
Or we could all top-post as that would have much the same effect. -- FF On Feb 24, 2:34 pm, D Smith wrote: Bruce Barnett writes: D Smith writes: 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 human effort to refetch articles already read isn't large, but in this newsgroup, with the number of postings, fetching EVERY article, and applying the killfile filters does take time - several minutes. In my newsreader, a few keystrokes to get all the article headers for the current subject, or for a particular author. Yes, not much, but as you point out, it does take time. On the other hand, if *everyone* began posting with no included context, forcing readers to refetch articles by thread to discover what is being discussed, the forum would become so useless that nobody would read it and the number of posting per day would drop significantly. That would solve the problem, wouldn't it? ;-) |
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. 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...
On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote: On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article . com, wrote: NO armed person on a battlefield is a protected person in the context of the 1949 Protocols.--LEAST OF ALL uniformed soldiers of a regularly constituted armed forces. That's kinda the point, Fred.... No, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of summary execution. Not at all. It's the central point. The issue at hand is summary execution. How is killing on the battlefield relevant to summary execution? [...] Suppose, for instance, a soldier is captured while sleeping in his barracks in his pajamas. By your insane argument, he would be subject to summary execution. Since when is a barracks a battlefield? Again, non-sequitor. The topic is NOT killng in battle it is summary execution. Not a non-sequitur at all. Nonsense. Killing on the field of battle is not execution. We were discussion summary execution of spies and saboteurs. Killing on the battlefield is not execution, summary or otherwise. [remainder snipped] First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statements, then you refuse to discuss further. I though better of you. And then, after that, you have the nerve to accuse *me* of presenting bogus arguments. Because you have nothing but present bogus arguments and obfuscation. The issue at hand is summary execution. You have never presented a single citation to support your claim that summary execution of a spy or saboteur is permissible Why did you you snip the reference to the 1907 Hague conventions and to the Articles of War? Was that so you could continue to pretend they do not exist? We were talking about the Geneva Convention. If you thought that this discussion was restricted to the 1949 Geneva Protocols, why do you keep changing the subject to killing on the field of battle? Besides, as you can easily confirm should you deign to use Google, YOU ASKED ME for a citation to the 1907 Hague conventions and to US law: In article . com, I wrote: 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 int eh 20th century. Then on On Feb 22, 3:15 pm, you requested: Cite Please? Now you refuse to read or discuss the citations you requested and instead chastise me for providing them to you, PER YOUR REQUEST. Do you seriously argue that citing the 1907 Hague Conventions and US law is irrelevant to what I wrote about the 1907 Hague Conventions and US law? Or will you just snip this again, without comment and later claim to have rebutted it. Look -- the last time this came up, several of us showed pretty conclusively that you have misread, misinterpreted, and ignored parts of the GCs to suit your own preconceived notions. Cite, please. All that I recall is your circular argument, for which you cited no authority, that an unlawful combatant is not entitled to a hearing to determine if he is an unlawful combatant. Do you care to explain how Mary Robinson, the ICRC, and the USSC also got it wrong? Will you ever cite ANYTHING to support your argument, or will you just continually snip where citations are requested of you and snip the citations that are provided to you and later claim that you rebutted them? I will also remind you that the UCMJ, which replaced the Articles of War in 1949-50, also prohibit summary execution. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 16, 11:13 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article , Bob Schmall wrote: On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon. They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Right. I got it. Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically speaking. The fact that they're a *recent* (geologically speaking) cyclical phenomenon does not alter their cyclical nature. Indeed. Nor does observation of past cycles imply a continuation of those same cycles. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote: On Feb 23, 10:32 pm, J. Clarke wrote: 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". As you know, killing in battle is not execution. Mr Miller and I disagree on the morality and legality of killing prisoners in cold blood after they have been taken alive--though he also tries to evade that issue by disingenuously referring to combat. And you, with even greater disingenuity conflate the legal conditions of combat and those of a civil society. I stand for respect for the rule of law. I make no apologies for refusing to discuss killing on the battlefield when the topic in the summary execution of suspected spies and saboteurs. It is Mr Miller who refuses to discuss summary execution and instead obfuscates with references to the field of battle. Why don't you quit dancing around and come right out and admit it: So long as they are captured combatants - any kind, with any target, using any method, with- or without- just cause - you want to treat it (legally) as a civil/criminal matter, not as a matter of war. You write about war as if there were no law in war. I have always argued for the rule of law, including the laws of armed conflict. Not just here, but all of my life. On the matters before us now, I have always argued that the laws of armed conflict, in particular, the doctrine of command responsibility should be applied to Al Queda , Hezbollah and any other armed paramilitary organization. You, OTOH, continually argue against the application of ANY law. I don't have to 'admit' it. I am damn proud to defend the principles of Liberalism on which this Nation was founded especially against fifth columnists such as yourself. No decent, moral, civilized person would deny the protection of the law to another human being. To do so would be an endorsement of the methods of our enemies even if we lack the stomach to execute them with the same barbarity. With apologies to Robert Bolt: Whereas a wise man, upon finding the devil himself in his power, should find it prudent, for his own safety's sake, to extend to the devil the benefit of the law, a moral man will do the same, knowing full well that were their fortunes reversed, the devil would not--and for exactly that reason. And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal to Geneva accords we've never signed. Cite, please. It's why you do the intellectual tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different. Cite please. I don't so much take offense that we disagree. I think you're wrong in principle, spirit, and interpretation of international law. But you're entitled to your views however much I don't see it that way. What I find dishonest is your unwillingness to come out and admit that you - like so many of the "The West Is Always Wrong" crowd - want to apply law and principle intended for participants of a civil society to people who are not only not party to the covenants of that society, but worse still, who actively *attack* those societies. Of course. That you deny the absolute moral necessity, and practical imperative of applying the rule of law ESPECIALLY to those who attack civilized society is beyond disgusting. Your arguments are an affront to morality as they are nothing more than age-old doctrine of the lynch mob--the guilty don't deserve trial. Further, you insult my Nation when you declare that our laws, values and principles, to say nothing of our means, are so defective as to render us incapable of defense without abandonment of those same laws, values and principles that make this Nation worthy of defense. You grew up in a country where the government had and used the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries, hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now have the gall to argue that our government should do the same, though only to those persons whom *you* would choose. And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin? -- FF |
If this is global warming...
wrote:
SNIP You grew up in a country where the government had and used the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries, hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of whom did any of this in my lifetime. have the gall to argue that our government should do the same, though only to those persons whom *you* would choose. And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin? Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right to make claims against it. No matter how much misdirection, half truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this. People not party to our social contract have no claim against its protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
If this is global warming...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal to Geneva accords we've never signed. I requested: "Cite Please" And I am still waiting. Tim Daneliuk also wrote: It's why you do the intellectual tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different. Again I requested: Cite please. And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath. On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote: wrote: SNIP You grew up in a country where the government had and used the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries, hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of whom did any of this in my lifetime. have the gall to argue that our government should do the same, though only to those persons whom *you* would choose. And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin? Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right to make claims against it. No matter how much misdirection, half truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this. People not party to our social contract have no claim against its protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious... As usual, you presume your conclusions and present no citations, no references, just snipping followed by false accusations, name-calling, and circular arguments. Absent a hearing before a competent court or tribunal, how should one of the High Contracting Powers determine if a captive has "engaged in combat otherwise"? Was that East or West Germany? You had previously indicated (ISTR this was in private email) a distrust of the Soviets, referring to your name as Ukrainian, by way of explanation. You have also referred to yourself as having lived in an oppressive society. I inferred from those two items that you had lived in the Ukraine under the Soviets, perhaps as you intended. You falsely claim that I defend "a nonexistent precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right to make claims against it. " That is a damn lie. I declare that no decent, moral, civilized person would deny the protection of the law to another human being. I argue further that to do so would be an endorsement of the methods of our enemies even if we lack the stomach to execute them with the same barbarity. I have always argued for the rule of law, including the laws of armed conflict. Not just now, but all of my life. On the matters before us now, I have always argued that the laws of armed conflict, in particular, the doctrine of command responsibility should be applied to Al Queda , Hezbollah and any other armed paramilitary organization. You, OTOH, consistently argue against the application of ANY law. I reject your absurd _contract law_ analogy. Calling defense of the rule of law ";defending' a nonexistent precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right to make claims against it." is an affront to morality and an insult to a Nation established on the principles of Constitutional government and the rule of law. It is nothing more than age-old doctrine of the lynch mob--the guilty don't deserve trial. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote: SNIP You grew up in a country where the government had and used the power to deny the protection of the law to whomsoever it deemed to be outside of civil society, dissidents, reactionaries, hooligans, whomever.. You came here, to this country, and now No I didn't. I grew up in Germany, Canada, and the US, none of whom did any of this in my lifetime. have the gall to argue that our government should do the same, though only to those persons whom *you* would choose. And your justification for this is what, we're NICER than Stalin? Nice but irrelevant tapdance. You are "defending" a nonexistent precept: That people not party to a contract have the moral right to make claims against it. No matter how much misdirection, half truth, or sleight-of-hand you pull off, you cannot avoid this. People not party to our social contract have no claim against its protections. People in combat as uniformed combatants have some limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 26, 12:00 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
... People in combat as uniformed combatants have some limited claims under the Geneva conventions. Anyone else who engages in combat otherwise has NO legal protections, though it may serve our interests to treat them with some care, but if and only if it IS in our own interests. Not complicated, no 12 paragraph dancing. Just a simple reading of the obvious... Perhaps you or Mr Miller would care to cite where the Protocols say that a head of state can declare all prisoners taken in a theater to be persons who have engaged in combat while not in uniform. Remember, that is what GW Bush did, when he declared that the protections of the GCs would not be extended to any of the prisoners taken in the Afghanistan theater. Is that not a collective punishment, which is strictly prohibited? Perhaps also one of you will tell us the battlefield on which Hamdi was taken prisoner and describe the arms he was bearing at that time. I doubt it. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
wrote in message
ps.com... | Tim Daneliuk wrote: | And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal | to Geneva accords we've never signed. | | I requested: | | "Cite Please" | | And I am still waiting. | | Tim Daneliuk also wrote: | | It's why you do the intellectual | tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you | want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different. | | Again I requested: | | Cite please. | | And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath. | Demanding a citation is a great conversational stumbling block. Mostly used when one cannot lucidly and logically counter a point successfully. (Conventional wisdom can be wrong, sometimes not.) I have no cite, no book, chapter and verse. I have a belief system. It works for me. I follow the law. I drive the speed limit. I file an honest tax return with the IRS. I say "Yes, Sir" and "Yes Ma'am." If someone would break into my house and threaten me or my family, I would do whatever was necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. I would permanently eliminate the threat by whatever means I could find. Laws, Geneva conventions, the Marquis of Queensbury rules and treaties are intended to establish a framework of conduct for civilized people. Homicidal/suicide bombers are not civilized people. Folks who insist they will destroy us, are not civilized people. People who publicly behead prisoners are not civilized prople. Civilized people to not fly plane loads of civilian non-combatants into buildings. War is a horrible and tragic event. All efforts must be used to prevent war. However, once we are in a war, we better have the stomach to win. In the end, there is no second place. No runner-up trophy. No gold stars for "playing by the rules." What ever it takes! My opinion, I could be wrong! (but I doubt it.) John Flatley |
If this is global warming...
John Flatley wrote:
wrote in message ps.com... | Tim Daneliuk wrote: | And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal | to Geneva accords we've never signed. | | I requested: | | "Cite Please" | | And I am still waiting. | | Tim Daneliuk also wrote: | | It's why you do the intellectual | tapdance you do to get the accords we did sign to say the things you | want them to even when their plain meaning is obviously different. | | Again I requested: | | Cite please. | | And still I wait. But I won't hold my breath. | Demanding a citation is a great conversational stumbling block. Mostly used when one cannot lucidly and logically counter a point successfully. (Conventional wisdom can be wrong, sometimes not.) I have no cite, no book, chapter and verse. I have a belief system. It works for me. I follow the law. I drive the speed limit. I file an honest tax return with the IRS. I say "Yes, Sir" and "Yes Ma'am." If someone would break into my house and threaten me or my family, I would do whatever was necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. I would permanently eliminate the threat by whatever means I could find. Laws, Geneva conventions, the Marquis of Queensbury rules and treaties are intended to establish a framework of conduct for civilized people. Homicidal/suicide bombers are not civilized people. Folks who insist they will destroy us, are not civilized people. People who publicly behead prisoners are not civilized prople. Civilized people to not fly plane loads of civilian non-combatants into buildings. War is a horrible and tragic event. All efforts must be used to prevent war. However, once we are in a war, we better have the stomach to win. In the end, there is no second place. No runner-up trophy. No gold stars for "playing by the rules." What ever it takes! My opinion, I could be wrong! (but I doubt it.) John Flatley You're not |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
On Feb 25, 10:14 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, says... On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Look -- the last time this came up, several of us showed pretty conclusively that you have misread, misinterpreted, and ignored parts of the GCs to suit your own preconceived notions. Cite, please. All that I recall is your circular argument, for which you cited no authority, that an unlawful combatant is not entitled to a hearing to determine if he is an unlawful combatant. Like I said -- rehash it with yourself if it makes you happy. You still haven't figured out that terrorists are *not* entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions, and, until you do, I see no point in continuing to discuss the issue with you. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 5:52 pm, "celticsoc" wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:57?pm, Chris Friesen wrote: wrote: All right guys, settle down. ?The experts have said we have global warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it. I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case... The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average. Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in general. ?So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh winters. Chris The concept was recently amended to "climatechange". Probably due to the fact there was an ice age preicted 30yearsago, and when the evidence started to point in a different direction, they went with "global warming". Global warming was predicted 30 years ago. If you look hard enough, you probably can find someone who still predicts an impending ice age. Now they have come to the realization that they can't really predict such things, and the pendulum might swing again. Therefore, they need an all-encompassing term for their fear- mongering. "They" are not all of like mind. Such generalities are, in general, not useful. The problem I have is that there seems ot be a general objective consensus that temperatures may be rising, but there is far from a consensus on cause, particularly in light of the fact that the earth's history has shown repeated episodes ofclimateextremes with no possibility of human intervention. Yet we are supposed to dramaticallychangethe way we operate in the US while other countries are not going to be bound by the same constraints. Causality needs to be understood before one can have confidence in predictions. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 9:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
DouginUtah wrote: ... That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. That statement is wrong. The spectral characteristics of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are well understood. OTHER factors that affect climate change are not as well understood. It is whence the uncertainties exist. The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carboncycle. Is it worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today - and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time. While I don;t argue against studying those correlations, doing so is no substitute for understanding causality. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 15, 3:54 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 18:02:03 -0800, wrote: ... That one year is warmer or cooler than the next is irrelevent; it's about the historical trend. See the graph at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png Far more important: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory While it is difficult to estimate how much CO2 nature produces and recovers each year it is not difficult to predict how much CO2 is produced by humanity each year. Fossil fuel production is sufficiently important to the world's economy that good estimates are available. It is reasonable to suppose that annual burning is pretty much equal to annual use. The observed rate of rise of CO2 is less than the total human contribution. This shows, pretty conclusively, that nature can recover all of the naturally produced CO2 and some of the anthropogenic. The spectral characteristics of CO2 are well understood, so it is clear that absent other factors the Earth's temperature will rise. Two other factors that are well studied, but not as well studied include variation in the solar constant, and dispersion of particulates and ice crystals in the stratosphere, primarily by jetliners. Several obvious questions: 1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like urban heat sink explain the apparent rise? 2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or simply statistical "noise"? 3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those temperatures during the late 19'th century? 4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored because they didn't fit the desired conclusions? ... and of course the most obvious issue, this is a small snapshop of 150 years. That is a relatively small snapshot in time. Small rises in temperature such as this, neglecting the likely urban heat sink local warming issues, are very likely due tosolarcycles that have nothing to do with human causes. Indications are that the solar constant is either not changing or slightly increasing. But atmospheric particulates and ice particles have increased dramatically over the last 50 years (just look at a satellite picture of a 'clear day'. That should drive global temperture down. Additionally, water and ice provide a strong buffering effect so that ANY change is going to be slower than would be expected if the atmosphere alone were heating or cooling. So it looks like we've been driving the temperature BOTH ways. I don't have any confidence in the temperature time series, but it does look like the Earth's ice inventory has been dropping fast and THAT is strong evidence that the heating effects are, for now, winning out. For something truly scary, read up on ocean clathrates and the methane gun hypothesis. Extermination by a giant Gaia fart, what a way to go. -- FF |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 25, 10:14 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, says... On Feb 25, 12:03 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Look -- the last time this came up, several of us showed pretty conclusively that you have misread, misinterpreted, and ignored parts of the GCs to suit your own preconceived notions. Cite, please. All that I recall is your circular argument, for which you cited no authority, that an unlawful combatant is not entitled to a hearing to determine if he is an unlawful combatant. Like I said -- rehash it with yourself if it makes you happy. You still haven't figured out that terrorists are *not* entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions, and, until you do, I see no point in continuing to discuss the issue with you. There's an interesting tactic. You change the subject then you refuse to discuss it. Let's return to the topic YOU introduced into this discussion, the disposition of captured spies and saboteurs, under the laws of armed conflict: As you will recall you introduced it thus: In http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en You wrote: 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 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. YOUR choice of words "spies and saboteurs." I asked you for a citation, and you refused to provide one. AFAICT, you still do. Regardless, in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en I wrote: And under the GC's persons accused of being such are guaranteed a hearing before a competent court or tribunal to determine their status. You requested a citation and I made a general reference to the Geneva Conventions. At some point I also quoted the UNHCHR, whose expertise in the matter I assume you consider to be inferior to your own Are you, by any chance, an Electrical Engineer? I'll be more specific now: 1949 Fourth Protocol Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.... Art. 5 ... Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, ... In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. And as I recall your argument is that the Fourth protocol only protects civilians, therefore the Fourth protocol provisions for spies and saboteurs are not applicable to spies and saboteurs. Also in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en I wrote: 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. So I provided them, and repeat them he 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 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 War that actually does authorize summary execution on the battlefield: 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. 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. And as I recall you claimed that the 1907 Hague conventions and the Articles of War cannot be used to support the statements I made about the Hague Conventions and the Articles of War because the Hague Conventions and the Articles of War aren't the Geneva Conventions. That pretty much brings us up to date. Google is my friend. -- FF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter