You completely ignore the difference between discretion over what crime to try someone for and what RULES to apply to that trial. We're not talking about prosecution seeking a particular sentence or a particular crime, we're talking about seeking a particular venue and set of rules for the trial.
The fact is, it is quite clear that Abdul Hamid did warrant that treatment by any rational person's definition of what constitutes an "enemy combatant". And therefore it is quite clear that any "discretion" that ought to be applied to the RULES of the trial has been abused.
BTW I was just reminded of the following:
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft approved the eavesdropping rule [on attorney/client conversations] on an emergency basis last week, without the usual waiting period for public comment. It went into effect immediately, permitting the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between people in custody and their attorneys for up to a year at a time.
Now, tell me again how it would be a threat to our national security to let Pedillo talk to a lawyer?
So you're saying that if the standards commonly used by the likes of Fox "News" were applied consistently, the media would be honest about how openly fascist our policies have become?
I feel they should be consistent, not arbitrary. Why are you having difficulty comprehending this?
If they didn't treat JWL as an enemy combatant, given the obviousness of his case, I don't think they have any call to treat Pedillo al-Muhawhatever or Hamdi any worse; as far as it goes, if they have evidence that they were actually a real threat, why does it have to be kept secret (oh yeah, they get to wave their hands and claim national security for anything that they want kept secret, and we the people never get to determine whether it really was justified or just another witchhunt; keep in mind that assertions that Pedillo was going to do this or that aren't evidence, they're assertions). If they want to treat Pedillo & Hamdi this harshly, then I can't understand what standard they could possibly have used to decide that JWL didn't deserve the same treatment (aside from the obvious point I've repeatedly made about the fact that JWL actually had parents with money who were going to raise hell if he'd been treated that way).
As for mandatory minimum sentencing, again that's a completely different issue. I think that there is a clear difference between normal prosecutorial discretion, normal judicial discretion (which is what mandatory minimums affect), and the decision to strip someone of their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on secret evidence. If you were actually bothering to listen to what I've said, you'd note that I see a point where, if with sufficient due process it is shown that someone is actually proven within the system to be an "enemy combatant" I have no objection to the rights being stripped.
The problem which you appear to be ignoring is that it is astoundingly stupid to trust the government to make that decision with no checks whatsoever; "we have secret evidence that this person is an enemy of the state and hereby stripped of their rights" offers no means to identify much less redress cases where the government is wrong, either through incompetence or through malice. I've seen enough cases of both in the span of my lifetime that I do not believe it is even slightly unreasonable for me to believe that the government is going to strip someone of their rights incorrectly, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
The reason I keep coming back to JWL is not because I'm a bloodthirsty bastard who wants all of 'em hung (despite your attempts to paint me into that corner). It's because there, already, we have a clear example where one individual who obviously should have been declared an enemy combatant and not given any constitutional rights (if you accept that such treatment of enemy combatants is correct) was not declared so. Discretion applied that appears to favor someone because their parents were in a position to make trouble by virtue of their wealth and position is not justice in any sense, nor is it an appropriate use of discretion. If this administration can't apply reasonable standards of discretion in that case, I hardly expect them to do so correctly in any other case.
Jose Pedillo could be everything and all the threat the administration claims, but they've already squandered any credibility they had to "just be trusted to get it right" by letting JWL off the hook.
And that should matter why? I could decide that I want to do humanitarian work in Pakistan, and then yes, I'd be getting off a plan from Pakistan when I come back home. So because I travel somewhere suspect, suddenly I'm an enemy combatant? Let's see, that means I can't travel to anywhere in Europe but Britain right now, can't go to a lot of places in the pacific rim, probably can't go much of anywhere overseas, actually. What's your point?
When it comes to stripping someone of the rights to due process that they as a citizen of the USA are guaranteed by the constitution, I'd say that's pretty different. Somehow, it seems to me that such an extreme action, while perhaps sometimes justified, does require a somewhat higher standard than the usual prosecutorial discretion.
Of course, I don't trust the government to use its discretion only for good, as apparently you do. And I think my primary counter example of specifically not using the discretion for good in this particular issue (John Walker Lindh) stands pretty clearly. You still fail to explain how JWL, as a US citizen actively participating in the military of a government known to be an "enemy" of ours, could possibly have any doubt as to his status as an "enemy combatant", much less still retain his due process rights in the face of that status. "They didn't think they could link him" seems pretty lame in the face of him having a gun pointed our way. That doesn't seem like "discretion" it seems like "preferential treatment".
Where precisely did I say no one should be treated as a POW?
The point here is that there are two ways to handle this: with a consistent standard (whichever way it cuts) or without. To my eyes, it looks like a pretty inconsistent standard to me. I fail to see how al-Quaeda member vs. Taliban army member matters a damn bit when we're at war with both.
If you give the government complete discretion instead of holding it to standards, then you are begging for the government to abuse that discretion; and guess what, if it can keep the evidence of being an enemy combatant secret and away from our usual judicial standards, you are placing all your trust in the idea that the government is infallible and won't make a mistake. Yeah, right.
The way the Bush administration is using the "enemy combatants" issue allows them in theory and so far in practice to arbitrarily declare that an individual is an enemy combantant and therefore not guaranteed any rights to defend themselves from this declaration. IF they had applied this consistently to any US citizen who was found to be an enemy combantant, they would have a leg to stand on. However, John Walker Lindh, obviously someone who you could only doubt was an enemy combatant if you count the money his parents were willing to spend on his behalf, was not treated as an enemy combantant, and was not stripped of his rights. IF they had some reasonable means of determining in a court of law that someone was an enemy combantant and then stripping them of their rights, they would also have a leg to stand on, but of course that's not what they're doing.
Personally, I find this extremely offensive, hypocritical, and threatening to my rights. Since I disagree quite strongly with the current administration's approach to a wide range of things to do with terrorism, citizens rights, etc. I do not think it is an entirely unlikely possibility for them to, at some point, try to declare me an enemy combatant (though I don't think at this very moment it is extremely likely either).
As for the whole "he could activate his sleeper cell through his lawyer" argument, that is specious. If it's acceptable to let the Teflon Don knowingly continue to run his syndicates through his lawyer, which certainly could be linked to the deaths of many people, I don't see how the possibility that maybe this guy could get a message--unmonitored! yeah, right!--to a sleeper cell is so much more a threat. After all, the mafia deals among other things in drugs, and if you deal drugs you're a terrorist, right?
Last time I checked, Lindh was caught "actively fighting in Afghanistan". The only doubt involved was "oh, it's a confused WHITE BOY who has WEALTHY PARENTS. Maybe it would look bad to treat him the way we treat those brown skinned folks."
I think there's a clear and obvious difference between an open war a la WWII and the nebulous "war on terrorism" which appears to let the government pick and choose who is and isn't an enemy combatant, even if they were caught on a battlefield--see the case of John Walker Lindh.
Arguing that Pedillo gave up his rights because the government alleges (hasn't even proven in a court yet, apparently) that he was a terrorist is hypocrisy of the highest order, when Lindh didn't give up his rights after being caught with a gun on a battlefield.
But of course what else can we expect from the judicial system where money buys a good verdict (Lindh, OJ, the list goes on....)
Too bad John Walker Lindh got to keep his rights then, isn't it? He certainly was an enemy in a foreign army, with much more preponderance of evidence to prove it. I guess that this "he gave up his rights" attitude only applies if you don't have parents who can buy you out of trouble.
So a man not apprehended on a battlefield is a POW how?
Oh wait. Since we're fighting the "war on terrorism" the world is our battlefield, and ANYONE can be accused of terrorism and summarily stripped of their rights as a US citizen (completely arbitrarily I might add, given that John Walker Lindh who WAS found on a goddamn battlefield was given full constitutional rights to legal representation etc...but wait, Pedillo or whatever else you wanna call him isn't a White Suburban Boy with Parents Who Have Money to Fight for Him!).
You need to distinguish the word style used to refer specifically to syntactic structures, and style used to refer to a more real-world sense of "how I go about programming". I don't think his presumption that everyone works most effectively in his manner is valid. For example, I don't have to turn my email off to be able to concentrate. And I never, to my knowledge, have had to have 3 hour stretches to do what little programming I do, since those projects are all side projects. I still accomplish things with my programming. Oh, wait, I guess he just meant head-down coders. Too bad that's not the only kind (or "style") of programming that occurs, eh?
I suppose I'm just some amateur, but I'd say those photos bear a striking resemblance to the guy in the mug shots. If that's not him, there's a really good double hanging around where he'd be likely to be.
I'm glad you've read the lawsuit. Are you a lawyer? How many lawyers do you know that would give advice assuming the outcome of litigation without being directly involved in the litigation? Most lawyers I've known or talked to are pretty conservative about prejudging outcomes, especially in technical cases where you never know how savvy the judge is to the real issues at hand.
Phil Dick saw the movie before his death, and strongly disagreed with your assessment of the movie and it's relationship to his book. Is the movie a clone of the book? No. Shouldn't have to be.
Even more unfortunately, for the original poster, Sun is not actually turning its back on Linux. Sun's covering their collective a$$ by waiting to move forward agressively on the Linux strategy until it becomes more clear how this litigation is going to shake out.
You seem to think that Sun is one monolithic Borgish hive mind that has one perspective on Linux. As a Sun employee, let me disabuse you of the notion. There are a wide range of opinions about Linux internally, and there are plenty of Linux "bigots" included in that range, as well as the opposite side Solaris "bigots".
It's my impression (in my personal opinion, not based on anything "proprietary" I've been told because I haven't been) that this announcement is a combination of lawyers and PR folks wanting to make it clear that Solaris is not subject to any such lawsuits from SCO and wanting to reassure our customers and shareholders that we won't get so far with our linux strategy as to get ourselves entangled on that score. "We're pausing to see what the implications are" is not "AVOID LINUX!!! IT'S DANGEROUS!!". It's smart business practice to keep from being dragged into a potential tar baby.
Just because you and I believe that the lawsuit is completely frivolous doesn't mean that a large corporation can blythely assume the outcome of litigation and proceed on a path that might lead to problems for us and our sharelholders.
Courtney Love is a whore. If the Monkee's song (covered by the Sex Pistols, incidentally) "Stepping Stone" had anybody in mind, it was female reptiles like her.
So why does she have the prominence she does to say what she does? Because she's a crappy hack who nobody would ever want to hear perform, so she's a perfect 'non-megastar' for people to point to.
What Courtney wrote in Salon has absolutely zip, zero, nada to do with her status as a star/not-star or whore/not-whore. She could be a Ballchinian for all I care about her music or personality. The point is, she (or someone ghosting for her, perhaps more likely) wrote an extended piece that follows the money for a typical band's CD release and illustrates how the industry screws all the artists except the ones who are such megastars as to be able to force their way out of the screwing factory. The real pirates are the RIAA and her article gives the substance to that assertion. You don't have to like her or her music to "get" that, unless you're the kind of idiot who assumes "people I don't like" == "people who never say anything interesting or impactful".
Let's remember that the RIAA and the member studios are among the biggest tramplers of the "rights of the artists". Go back and re-read Courtney Love's account of the finances involved in any non-megastar artist getting paid for their work. Go back and re-read Janice Ian's cogent points about how once she started allowing downloads of her music she made MORE money, not less. Think back to how it is that most (obviously not all) artists make most of their real cash from touring and playing live, and that record releases are largely a way to drum up interest in those live performances. This is especially true when artists make a microscopic fraction of the $18 it costs to buy their CD at most retail outlets (again, go re-read Courtney Love's statements on the matter).
As for software, honestly I can't address that other than to say you're the first person I've ever heard claim that Thief 2 was so heavily pirated it ran them out of business. They certainly didn't claim that. I certainly bought my copy legitimately. What more do you want?
Most people are reasonable and law abiding and recognize the value of paying others for the entertainment they provide. If the value proposition of the entertainment was good, piracy would only infect the segments of society that either 1) simply can't afford much of anything (who arguably aren't likely to have internet access anyway) or 2) would be pirating for the fun of it regardless.
Me, I think that being able to download music, check it out, THEN decide if I want to buy it is a Good Thing[tm]. Given that ClearChannel controls so much of the radio market that I hardly hear anything I give a damn about on the airwaves any more (to get me excited to go buy stuff), and given that the labels as a general rule are releasing so much crap, and given that the resale value of a CD is insignificant (I'm lucky to get $5 for a new CD I bought for $18 and listened to once? Insane), I don't see any other avenue to go through. All the MP3's I've downloaded fall into three broad categories:
things I thought I might like, but didn't (the new Massive Attack, the new Tori Amos both qualify here)
things I thought I might like, and did, and then went and bought the cd
things that I'd buy if they were available from the labels, but they don't deign to release (e.g. The Boomtown Rats _Fine Art of Surfacing_)
None of these is a case where I am stealing from the artist. If anything, the labels, by refusing to release older work that is still of interest to me, is denying the artists the chance to make more royalties from me. If I were forced to spend $13 net on albums I didn't like, I just wouldn't spend anything. That's not a value proposition I can live with, and the industry ought to think hard about how much less they'd be making if everyone made that judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
And then the Taliban outlawed opium and actually had some impact on reducing the trade. Try again.
The fact is, it is quite clear that Abdul Hamid did warrant that treatment by any rational person's definition of what constitutes an "enemy combatant". And therefore it is quite clear that any "discretion" that ought to be applied to the RULES of the trial has been abused.
BTW I was just reminded of the following:
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft approved the eavesdropping rule [on attorney/client conversations] on an emergency basis last week, without the usual waiting period for public comment. It went into effect immediately, permitting the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between people in custody and their attorneys for up to a year at a time.
Now, tell me again how it would be a threat to our national security to let Pedillo talk to a lawyer?
So you're saying that if the standards commonly used by the likes of Fox "News" were applied consistently, the media would be honest about how openly fascist our policies have become?
If they didn't treat JWL as an enemy combatant, given the obviousness of his case, I don't think they have any call to treat Pedillo al-Muhawhatever or Hamdi any worse; as far as it goes, if they have evidence that they were actually a real threat, why does it have to be kept secret (oh yeah, they get to wave their hands and claim national security for anything that they want kept secret, and we the people never get to determine whether it really was justified or just another witchhunt; keep in mind that assertions that Pedillo was going to do this or that aren't evidence, they're assertions). If they want to treat Pedillo & Hamdi this harshly, then I can't understand what standard they could possibly have used to decide that JWL didn't deserve the same treatment (aside from the obvious point I've repeatedly made about the fact that JWL actually had parents with money who were going to raise hell if he'd been treated that way).
As for mandatory minimum sentencing, again that's a completely different issue. I think that there is a clear difference between normal prosecutorial discretion, normal judicial discretion (which is what mandatory minimums affect), and the decision to strip someone of their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on secret evidence. If you were actually bothering to listen to what I've said, you'd note that I see a point where, if with sufficient due process it is shown that someone is actually proven within the system to be an "enemy combatant" I have no objection to the rights being stripped.
The problem which you appear to be ignoring is that it is astoundingly stupid to trust the government to make that decision with no checks whatsoever; "we have secret evidence that this person is an enemy of the state and hereby stripped of their rights" offers no means to identify much less redress cases where the government is wrong, either through incompetence or through malice. I've seen enough cases of both in the span of my lifetime that I do not believe it is even slightly unreasonable for me to believe that the government is going to strip someone of their rights incorrectly, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
The reason I keep coming back to JWL is not because I'm a bloodthirsty bastard who wants all of 'em hung (despite your attempts to paint me into that corner). It's because there, already, we have a clear example where one individual who obviously should have been declared an enemy combatant and not given any constitutional rights (if you accept that such treatment of enemy combatants is correct) was not declared so. Discretion applied that appears to favor someone because their parents were in a position to make trouble by virtue of their wealth and position is not justice in any sense, nor is it an appropriate use of discretion. If this administration can't apply reasonable standards of discretion in that case, I hardly expect them to do so correctly in any other case.
Jose Pedillo could be everything and all the threat the administration claims, but they've already squandered any credibility they had to "just be trusted to get it right" by letting JWL off the hook.
And that should matter why? I could decide that I want to do humanitarian work in Pakistan, and then yes, I'd be getting off a plan from Pakistan when I come back home. So because I travel somewhere suspect, suddenly I'm an enemy combatant? Let's see, that means I can't travel to anywhere in Europe but Britain right now, can't go to a lot of places in the pacific rim, probably can't go much of anywhere overseas, actually. What's your point?
Of course, I don't trust the government to use its discretion only for good, as apparently you do. And I think my primary counter example of specifically not using the discretion for good in this particular issue (John Walker Lindh) stands pretty clearly. You still fail to explain how JWL, as a US citizen actively participating in the military of a government known to be an "enemy" of ours, could possibly have any doubt as to his status as an "enemy combatant", much less still retain his due process rights in the face of that status. "They didn't think they could link him" seems pretty lame in the face of him having a gun pointed our way. That doesn't seem like "discretion" it seems like "preferential treatment".
Well then. Your blanket assertion of complete difference without any supporting facts has completely convined me. Er. Maybe not.
The point here is that there are two ways to handle this: with a consistent standard (whichever way it cuts) or without. To my eyes, it looks like a pretty inconsistent standard to me. I fail to see how al-Quaeda member vs. Taliban army member matters a damn bit when we're at war with both.
If you give the government complete discretion instead of holding it to standards, then you are begging for the government to abuse that discretion; and guess what, if it can keep the evidence of being an enemy combatant secret and away from our usual judicial standards, you are placing all your trust in the idea that the government is infallible and won't make a mistake. Yeah, right.
Personally, I find this extremely offensive, hypocritical, and threatening to my rights. Since I disagree quite strongly with the current administration's approach to a wide range of things to do with terrorism, citizens rights, etc. I do not think it is an entirely unlikely possibility for them to, at some point, try to declare me an enemy combatant (though I don't think at this very moment it is extremely likely either).
As for the whole "he could activate his sleeper cell through his lawyer" argument, that is specious. If it's acceptable to let the Teflon Don knowingly continue to run his syndicates through his lawyer, which certainly could be linked to the deaths of many people, I don't see how the possibility that maybe this guy could get a message--unmonitored! yeah, right!--to a sleeper cell is so much more a threat. After all, the mafia deals among other things in drugs, and if you deal drugs you're a terrorist, right?
Last time I checked, Lindh was caught "actively fighting in Afghanistan". The only doubt involved was "oh, it's a confused WHITE BOY who has WEALTHY PARENTS. Maybe it would look bad to treat him the way we treat those brown skinned folks."
Arguing that Pedillo gave up his rights because the government alleges (hasn't even proven in a court yet, apparently) that he was a terrorist is hypocrisy of the highest order, when Lindh didn't give up his rights after being caught with a gun on a battlefield.
But of course what else can we expect from the judicial system where money buys a good verdict (Lindh, OJ, the list goes on....)
Too bad John Walker Lindh got to keep his rights then, isn't it? He certainly was an enemy in a foreign army, with much more preponderance of evidence to prove it. I guess that this "he gave up his rights" attitude only applies if you don't have parents who can buy you out of trouble.
Oh wait. Since we're fighting the "war on terrorism" the world is our battlefield, and ANYONE can be accused of terrorism and summarily stripped of their rights as a US citizen (completely arbitrarily I might add, given that John Walker Lindh who WAS found on a goddamn battlefield was given full constitutional rights to legal representation etc...but wait, Pedillo or whatever else you wanna call him isn't a White Suburban Boy with Parents Who Have Money to Fight for Him!).
No potential for abuse there at all....
You need to distinguish the word style used to refer specifically to syntactic structures, and style used to refer to a more real-world sense of "how I go about programming". I don't think his presumption that everyone works most effectively in his manner is valid. For example, I don't have to turn my email off to be able to concentrate. And I never, to my knowledge, have had to have 3 hour stretches to do what little programming I do, since those projects are all side projects. I still accomplish things with my programming. Oh, wait, I guess he just meant head-down coders. Too bad that's not the only kind (or "style") of programming that occurs, eh?
Because we all know that there's only one style of programming that works for everyone and is guaranteed to be most efficient.
I suppose I'm just some amateur, but I'd say those photos bear a striking resemblance to the guy in the mug shots. If that's not him, there's a really good double hanging around where he'd be likely to be.
I'm glad you've read the lawsuit. Are you a lawyer? How many lawyers do you know that would give advice assuming the outcome of litigation without being directly involved in the litigation? Most lawyers I've known or talked to are pretty conservative about prejudging outcomes, especially in technical cases where you never know how savvy the judge is to the real issues at hand.
Phil Dick saw the movie before his death, and strongly disagreed with your assessment of the movie and it's relationship to his book. Is the movie a clone of the book? No. Shouldn't have to be.
Even more unfortunately, for the original poster, Sun is not actually turning its back on Linux. Sun's covering their collective a$$ by waiting to move forward agressively on the Linux strategy until it becomes more clear how this litigation is going to shake out.
It's my impression (in my personal opinion, not based on anything "proprietary" I've been told because I haven't been) that this announcement is a combination of lawyers and PR folks wanting to make it clear that Solaris is not subject to any such lawsuits from SCO and wanting to reassure our customers and shareholders that we won't get so far with our linux strategy as to get ourselves entangled on that score. "We're pausing to see what the implications are" is not "AVOID LINUX!!! IT'S DANGEROUS!!". It's smart business practice to keep from being dragged into a potential tar baby.
Just because you and I believe that the lawsuit is completely frivolous doesn't mean that a large corporation can blythely assume the outcome of litigation and proceed on a path that might lead to problems for us and our sharelholders.
Courtney Love is a whore. If the Monkee's song (covered by the Sex Pistols, incidentally) "Stepping Stone" had anybody in mind, it was female reptiles like her. So why does she have the prominence she does to say what she does? Because she's a crappy hack who nobody would ever want to hear perform, so she's a perfect 'non-megastar' for people to point to.
What Courtney wrote in Salon has absolutely zip, zero, nada to do with her status as a star/not-star or whore/not-whore. She could be a Ballchinian for all I care about her music or personality. The point is, she (or someone ghosting for her, perhaps more likely) wrote an extended piece that follows the money for a typical band's CD release and illustrates how the industry screws all the artists except the ones who are such megastars as to be able to force their way out of the screwing factory. The real pirates are the RIAA and her article gives the substance to that assertion. You don't have to like her or her music to "get" that, unless you're the kind of idiot who assumes "people I don't like" == "people who never say anything interesting or impactful".
As for software, honestly I can't address that other than to say you're the first person I've ever heard claim that Thief 2 was so heavily pirated it ran them out of business. They certainly didn't claim that. I certainly bought my copy legitimately. What more do you want?
Most people are reasonable and law abiding and recognize the value of paying others for the entertainment they provide. If the value proposition of the entertainment was good, piracy would only infect the segments of society that either 1) simply can't afford much of anything (who arguably aren't likely to have internet access anyway) or 2) would be pirating for the fun of it regardless.
Me, I think that being able to download music, check it out, THEN decide if I want to buy it is a Good Thing[tm]. Given that ClearChannel controls so much of the radio market that I hardly hear anything I give a damn about on the airwaves any more (to get me excited to go buy stuff), and given that the labels as a general rule are releasing so much crap, and given that the resale value of a CD is insignificant (I'm lucky to get $5 for a new CD I bought for $18 and listened to once? Insane), I don't see any other avenue to go through. All the MP3's I've downloaded fall into three broad categories:
- things I thought I might like, but didn't (the new Massive Attack, the new Tori Amos both qualify here)
- things I thought I might like, and did, and then went and bought the cd
- things that I'd buy if they were available from the labels, but they don't deign to release (e.g. The Boomtown Rats _Fine Art of Surfacing_)
None of these is a case where I am stealing from the artist. If anything, the labels, by refusing to release older work that is still of interest to me, is denying the artists the chance to make more royalties from me. If I were forced to spend $13 net on albums I didn't like, I just wouldn't spend anything. That's not a value proposition I can live with, and the industry ought to think hard about how much less they'd be making if everyone made that judgement.And here, everyone thought geeks weren't the same sexist assholes as the rest of the males around.
If only I still had my mod points to give you. :-)
I was kind of interested in a comparison between them, not the assertion that they existed (I knew that already).