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.

--
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

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

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

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.

"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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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!]

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

writes:

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.

If "Bill in Detroit" responded to a post from "Doug Miller", then
presumably Doug's original post will be on both Doug's server and Bill's
server, but anyone else reading the discussion has no guarantee...

(Although I *have* had some of my posts appear on Google, thus making
it to the outside world, even though I never saw them on my server... but
my ISP thinks the server and news feed is working fine...)

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.

Now you're dating yourself. :-)

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.

...or he's assuming that if he can remember the context, then everyone
else can too. Which suggests that he's assuming that everyone else reading
the group is smarter than he is (i.e., he doesn't need to do anything
to help those of us that are dumber)...

...which may not be a bad assumption....

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. 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. And *that's* the crux of the dispute. It's why you appeal
to Geneva accords we've never signed. 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.

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.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

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....
[...]
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?

[remainder snipped]

First you present totally bogus and/or irrelevant statments,
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.

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

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

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

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

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.

[...]

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.


[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.

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. I'm not going to rehash that with you again. If
you want to rehash it on your own, be my guest.

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

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

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? ;-)

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.

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

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

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.

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

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/

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

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/

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

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

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

wrote:
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


I dunno, I was not in the theater of battle. But a no time and by no media outlet
did I see any of the combatants wearing an identifiable uniform. (Likely you believe
they were stripped out of their sharply pressed fatigues by the stooges of that eeeeeeeevil
George Bush and place in civilian clothing so he could oppress them. That would
make as much sense as most of the other things you've written.) The point is, if they
were uniformed NO ONE managed to record trhat fact. This leads me to guess - and it is just
that - that they probably were NOT uniformed and thus not protected by the GCs - at least
the ones to which the US is a signatory. See how simple it is when you let logic precede
ideological foaming?

wrote:
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.

Oh, a casual reading of your past postings should do it, but I shant
bother. You're playing a little rhetorical game here to (as always)
misdirect attention from the frailty of your argument. You have
in the past argued strenuously that the GCs protect non-uniformed
combatants. When refuted multiple times by several people on the topic,
you have to resort to the "other" GC. So, then you had to be informed
that the US never signed those. Then you retreat to "well, civilized
people would NEVER do such and so.." and your descent into nonsense
begins.



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"?

The same way we determine *anyone* is a combatant - they
engage in, um .... combat. Your premises keep you from rational
conclusions. War and civil/criminal law are different environments
The same burdens and cautions that exist in latter are much relaxed
or even absent in the former because ... you don't have time for
a lot of legal fine points when the bullets are flying at you.



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.

Correct.


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.

No, I said I had a family history that was well acquainted with
both Soviet and pre-Soviet Eastern Europe. I was not more specific.

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.

Deconstruction: "I am the arbiter of what constitutes
moral, civil, or decent human action. Anyone who disagrees
with my views cannot possibly support these precepts." The
problem, Sparky, is that some of us - me in particular - happen
think your ideas are *immoral*. When you extend the privileges
of civil and criminal law to the battlefield - especially as regards
to people who target civilians intentionally by hiding themselves
among them - you are enabling evil, which is an innately immoral
position.

Incidentally, "the protection of law" as a notion presumes an implicit
set of agreements known as, um ... "law". Protection under these
covenants cannot be demanded when an individual is not party to them.

As a US citizen living within US borders, the fine people of Poland
cannot, for example, insist that I obey *their* laws. Why? Because
I am not party to their national covenants while I am in the US. OTOH,
if they agree to permit me to enter their nation, I implicitly accept
the terms of their legal covenants by entering the country and can
make corresponding claims against those covenants while I am there.

Hoever, if I enter Poland illegally with the intent of making war and don't
wear a uniform, *they owe me nothing under their legal system*. At
most, they owe me whatever they've agreed to under international
law that might apply in such cases.



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'm sure you would. And you would be (and are) wrong in so
saying. There is a world of difference between someone
targeting innocent non-participants and someone stopping
them from doing so. Your inability to see this distinction
is but one indication of the muddled morality that derives from
your bad premises. Had I walked into the room where the people
were savagely butchering Daniel Pearl, I would have had no
moral problem putting them to death immediately without further
discussion. You, OTOH, no doubt would have wanted to read them
their (non-existent) international version of Miranda rights.




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 matte

But in my observation here and elsewhere, your vigorous defense
is not of the "law" as usually understood, but of some tortured
version of it that is more aligned with your ideology.

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.

Yes, I know. Over and over again, you say the same thing without
a foundation in law, philosophy, or even common sense.

You, OTOH, consistently argue against the application
of ANY law.

No so. Criminal and civil law applies to people who are
participants in our social contract. THe GCs and similar
laws are applicable to those parties they specify to the
extent that any nation has agreed to honor them. I just consistently
argue that there is an inherent moral or legal reason to extend
any of the above to non-uniformed combatants who target civilians.


I reject your absurd _contract law_ analogy.

That's because you apparently don't understand any law. *All* law is
at least implicitly a matter of covenants - at least it is in free
societies. Even criminal law depends on social contracts as well
articulated by people like John Locke. The idea that "contracts"
are only relevant to commercial matters misses the idea of covenants
as the more general building blocks of all laws. The entire basis
of the Declaration Of Independence, for instance, is a justification
rooted in the argument that King George failed to fulfill his
*obligations* to the colonies. Those "obligations" derive
implicitly from the presence of agreed-to or expected convenantal
relationships.


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.

No. It's an affront to ideologues like yourself who want to
subtly redefine well established notions of "law", rewrite
Constitutional intent and history, and generally made the world
tilt to suit your premises. But it won't wash - not for anyone
whose studied even a minor amount of either topic. What is immoral
is the drooly reinterpretation of history and law that effectively
defangs our ability to crush the (very few) people who resort
to terror tactics on- and off- the battlefield. It is immoral
because it undermines our ability to thwart evil.


It is nothing more than age-old doctrine of the lynch mob--the
guilty don't deserve trial.


Yawn.
--

FF

writes:

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.


Nor does observation of past cycles preclude the possibility of changes
caused by newly-introduced factors.

After all, if your bank balance goes through cycles - dependent on your
patterns of income deposits and expense withdrawals - that doesn't mean
that your balance won't be affected if I start skimming money out of it...

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.

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

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

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

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