about the rigorless "research" done by the op, just pretend that the article was posted in "ask slashdot", get off your high horses and try to contribute to the discussion.
maybe even doing some of that rigorous research yourself.
coupled with the other oddly overstated pronouncements like the movie "Love Story" was based on he and his wife, a picture was painted reminiscient of the insecurity you find in the unpopular kid in 5th grade who is bragging to everyone about how his dad is an astronaut currently assigned to mars.
it was all just weird. you think he could have just rested on his actual record as a US senator.
this doesn't pass the smell test. there's no sureer way of getting more people on the side of your cause than to lump the other side with existing known boogeymen.
next we're going to learn that people who don't believe the moon landing was faked are aligned with nazis
which is what i stated. the "unlawful" definition was fleshed out in a us supreme court decision circa ~1944 called "ex parte quirin" (just google it to find it). what the geneva convention says is that detainees of questionable status are to be treated under geneva convention protocols UNTIL their status is determined by a competent tribunal, which in this case is the US military and President Bush.
in the case of ex parte quirin, the unlawful enemy combatants where given their tribunal, found guilty (of being unlawful enemy combatants) and summarily executed (which would have been a violation of the Geneva convention IF they were lawful enemy combatants). In the case of gitmo, the unlawful enemy combatants are given their tribunal, found guilty (of being unlawful enemy combatants) and further detained and interrogated for intelligence purposes. After interrogation, in some cases, they get more information to prosecute the war on terror, in other cases they determine that the unlawful enemy combatant is not a further threat to the US and they let them go.
actually, there is a third category of persons beyond "lawful enemy combatant" and "citizen". that is the "unlawful enemy combatant". this is a special case where the person was engaged in hostile war actions against the enemy, but does not meet the requirments of being a POW (because they engaged in military acts unlawfully as defined by article 4 of geneva convention iii).
they aern't civliians because they engaged in war acts and they aren't awarded geneva protections as a POW because they didn't meet the standard defined in the geneva convention (specifically, they fought like terrorists).
article 5 of GC iii decalres that if the status of an individual is in question (i.e. not a lawful enemy combatant and not a civilian), then they are to be treated with accord to the geneva convention until a competent tribunal declares their status.
what tribunal would that be? well, a military tribunal that is run by the commander of the enemy armed forces.
in the case of gitmo detainees, they have their tribunal and they are declared by Bush (the leader of the US armed forces) to be "unlawful enemy combatants", which is a class defined by US precedent (ex parte quirin) that is neither a civilian or a lawful prisoner of war.
there are those who would claim that "unlawful enemy combatant" doesn't really exist because the geneva convention doesn't define it ignore an important and relevant point that the geneva convention (in article 4 of GCiii) defines in painstaking detail what a lawful enemy combatant would be.
if it was as simple as "those who engage in the war are lawful enemy combatants and all others are civilians", then why didn't the geneva convention state that? the obvious reason is because it would be ridiculous. the naive interpretation of the geneva convention would have us going into afghanistan to get al-queda, but when we caputre a terrorist, we would need to turn them over TO al-queda for prosecution because they don't fit the narrow definition of a lawful enemy combatant.
the fact that the geneva convention does take painstaking detail to describe teh types of persons who are qualified to be treated with the rights of the geneva convention, implies the existence of unlawful enemy combatants. us supreme court precedent then confirms that implication (search for ex parte quirin).
why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.
you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.
i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle.
ouch. i was gonna point out that your insinuated jump to conclusion about the evil bush admin banning this kind of research was off base until i realized so many other people caught you on your amateur observation.
what was even more entertaining was watching you try to slink out of it by claiming people wre putting words in your mouth AND then following up by putting words in other people's mouths (below when someone makes the claim "the bush admin is the first admin to provide federal funding for stem cell research" to which you reply "stem cell research was done before the bush admin").
"...he's merely another power-hungry despot who uses religious fanaticism to depose...."
Sounds a lot like another world leader I can think of:)
think that thought through before you so cavalierly express your irrational hatred of Bush. If you say that Bush is a terrorist leader, then you are also saying that our soldiers are morally equivalent to the 9-11 hijackers.
and that's just downright stupid.
and your bitch is the obvious "believe anything bad about bush no matter how ridiculous" response we've come to expect from "progressives".
the memo cited was rpesented late january 2001. it didn't talk about any specific threats and bascially just asked for clarification about what responses we should do against al-queda.
the problem with the view that clarke was disgruntled becasue the administration wouldn't listen to him about al-queda is that clarke wasn't concerned with al-queda when he left. instead he was the "cyberterrorism" czar and he was pissed that the adminsitration wasn't taking "cyberterrorism" seriously enough.
i'm sorry, but noone has ever died becasue of "cyberterrorism" and focusing on military actions against terrorism sponsoring states (like afghanistan and iraq) should certainly take precedence, no matter what clarke thought.
as much as some people feel the need to whitewash Clarke's motives, the reality is that thee is a very real motive for this guy to cover his ass.
he didn't come out and start complaining until after he was let go and it became obvious that an inquiry into intelligence failures of 9-11 were going to happen.
he quickly jumped on the "not me" wagon by trying to control the discussion. he did this by pointing fingers at everyone else in the hopes that people wouldn't notice that he spent most of his time at counter-terror advisor in the 90's concerned about non-existent Y2K and "cyberterrorism" problems when he should have been more interested in Osama bin-Laden and Al-Queda.
of course, these "scare numbers" were front page news and accepted without question when al gore presented them to help bolster his idea of a "social security lock box".
anyne who says they can tell you what tax revenues will be like in 75 years is just trying to sell you on a political point of view.
uh, yeah. my relevant (and even funny) critique above was modded down to -1 offtopic (after being modded up for insightful).
it's quite obvious that the tin-foil hat liberal knee-jerk crowd here at/. have come out full force to back this film.
the irony is that all you guys are making my main point for me.
that point being moore built this film custom tailored to get $9/pop from an energized crowd. he is selling anti-bush propaganda to people who already hate bush and he's making a killing off it.
people who are immune to tin-foil hat conspiracies, contradictions or flat out falshoods are not going to be influenced by this film.
i do have to give moore credit for knowing his audience and knowing what they would be willing to pay for.
and formed a completely different opinion of the film. the film was custom tailored to bush haters and the tin-foil hat crowd. it started out with a bang in the first 10 minutes by espousing alternate histories of what happened in the 2000 election followed by several paranoid conspiracies (including bush helped plan 9-11 and bush went into afghanistan for oil).
after the first 10 minutes, however, it quickly devolved into long boring stretches of raw footage with no voiceover or script. it seemed to me he was trying to stretch the film into feature length just so he could charge $9/pop for it.
i can't really blame him. it certainly can't be easy to make a documentary from falsehoods and far out innuendo.
picture this:
you are michael moore. you've got all the footage for your movie and you are in the editing process. you're sitting at your computer with your box of donuts carefully crafting your next lie and innuendo. your carefully researched script has you saying in a voiceover "george bush made the claim that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a claim that no other president or politician made before him." you've decided to show a video clip of bill clinton looking all presidential with his "i feel your pain" look on his face. while you are editing this together, you hear in the background a cnn report that shows bill clinton and al gore making claims that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
you curse loudly and quickly edit the script and the video footage in hopes that your finished film won't make you look like a complete retard.
your next clip you decided to find footage for is the one where you say "people who join the military are statistically more likely to abuse their spouse, kick their dog, have sex with goats and murder people with dark skin." you find some footage of goofy looking servicemen having sex with goats to put into your movie at this point. after you've put it all in and made it for your final movie, one of your editors says "i think that might be going a little overboard with the anti-soldier rhetoric, maybe we ought to take it out." when your other editors agree, you fly off in a rage throwing the box of krispy kremes across the room, before you edit out the most overt anti-soldier footage in the film.
after all the editing is said and done and you think you got out all the stuff that is blatantly false as well as the stuff that will show what you really think about america and the troops, you are left with 10 minutes of a film. the election is coming near and you realize that at the pace you are going, you will miss the push that the election will give to your movie and you won't make anywhere near the amount of money that you hope to. so you decide to show long stretches of footage of a woman who lost her son in iraq and the grief she feels over it. don't worry about a script, perhaps the first ten minutes of tin-foil hat conspiracies will be enough to satiate the nutcases and bush-haters.
unfortunately, when you film is done, in the can and in distributor's hands, it's clear that you missed editing out many of the falsehoods that make you look like a tard, but you hang on to the hope that the french film festival will look past the factual errors, contradictions and general boringness of the film and only be able to see it's direct anti-americanism. knowing that it doesn't require a good salesman to sell anti-americanism to the french or liberal elites, you hope that it's enough to get their praise.
your hopes come true and you have donut money for the rest of your life.
in all, i think this film was built to appeal to the paranoid choir and as such has no chance of convincing anyone who isn't already convinced.
Slashdot Mirror
about the rigorless "research" done by the op, just pretend that the article was posted in "ask slashdot", get off your high horses and try to contribute to the discussion.
maybe even doing some of that rigorous research yourself.
this.
coupled with the other oddly overstated pronouncements like the movie "Love Story" was based on he and his wife, a picture was painted reminiscient of the insecurity you find in the unpopular kid in 5th grade who is bragging to everyone about how his dad is an astronaut currently assigned to mars.
it was all just weird. you think he could have just rested on his actual record as a US senator.
go figure.
The morale of this story is that net neutrality and freedom of speech MUST be protected..... unless it's by someone we don't like!
/.
bravo register and
this doesn't pass the smell test. there's no sureer way of getting more people on the side of your cause than to lump the other side with existing known boogeymen.
next we're going to learn that people who don't believe the moon landing was faked are aligned with nazis
I can quantify the infringements on my rights and freedom
please do this for us. i'm curious to know how horrible your life is because you can no longer carry a box cutter on board an airplane.
or maybe you can give us something a little more substantive in your personal experience?
good point. no way the suicide bombers would risk killing themselves.
that would just be cwazy.
lesson learned:
if you have a boring, poorly written story to tell, scream PATRIOT ACT and people will pay attention.
lesson that should be learned:
supress those exhibitionist urges and stop exposing so much of yourself on the internet.
amazing that they missed socialism in that list of what makes up fascism
which is what i stated. the "unlawful" definition was fleshed out in a us supreme court decision circa ~1944 called "ex parte quirin" (just google it to find it). what the geneva convention says is that detainees of questionable status are to be treated under geneva convention protocols UNTIL their status is determined by a competent tribunal, which in this case is the US military and President Bush.
in the case of ex parte quirin, the unlawful enemy combatants where given their tribunal, found guilty (of being unlawful enemy combatants) and summarily executed (which would have been a violation of the Geneva convention IF they were lawful enemy combatants). In the case of gitmo, the unlawful enemy combatants are given their tribunal, found guilty (of being unlawful enemy combatants) and further detained and interrogated for intelligence purposes. After interrogation, in some cases, they get more information to prosecute the war on terror, in other cases they determine that the unlawful enemy combatant is not a further threat to the US and they let them go.
heh. she just signed a book deal for 7 figures. did you say cost or payoff?
actually, there is a third category of persons beyond "lawful enemy combatant" and "citizen". that is the "unlawful enemy combatant". this is a special case where the person was engaged in hostile war actions against the enemy, but does not meet the requirments of being a POW (because they engaged in military acts unlawfully as defined by article 4 of geneva convention iii).
they aern't civliians because they engaged in war acts and they aren't awarded geneva protections as a POW because they didn't meet the standard defined in the geneva convention (specifically, they fought like terrorists).
article 5 of GC iii decalres that if the status of an individual is in question (i.e. not a lawful enemy combatant and not a civilian), then they are to be treated with accord to the geneva convention until a competent tribunal declares their status.
what tribunal would that be? well, a military tribunal that is run by the commander of the enemy armed forces.
in the case of gitmo detainees, they have their tribunal and they are declared by Bush (the leader of the US armed forces) to be "unlawful enemy combatants", which is a class defined by US precedent (ex parte quirin) that is neither a civilian or a lawful prisoner of war.
there are those who would claim that "unlawful enemy combatant" doesn't really exist because the geneva convention doesn't define it ignore an important and relevant point that the geneva convention (in article 4 of GCiii) defines in painstaking detail what a lawful enemy combatant would be.
if it was as simple as "those who engage in the war are lawful enemy combatants and all others are civilians", then why didn't the geneva convention state that? the obvious reason is because it would be ridiculous. the naive interpretation of the geneva convention would have us going into afghanistan to get al-queda, but when we caputre a terrorist, we would need to turn them over TO al-queda for prosecution because they don't fit the narrow definition of a lawful enemy combatant.
the fact that the geneva convention does take painstaking detail to describe teh types of persons who are qualified to be treated with the rights of the geneva convention, implies the existence of unlawful enemy combatants. us supreme court precedent then confirms that implication (search for ex parte quirin).
why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.
you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.
i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle.
i'd like to see an example of where the patriot act provisions were used egregiously by the current administration.
ouch. i was gonna point out that your insinuated jump to conclusion about the evil bush admin banning this kind of research was off base until i realized so many other people caught you on your amateur observation.
what was even more entertaining was watching you try to slink out of it by claiming people wre putting words in your mouth AND then following up by putting words in other people's mouths (below when someone makes the claim "the bush admin is the first admin to provide federal funding for stem cell research" to which you reply "stem cell research was done before the bush admin").
amazing.
"...he's merely another power-hungry despot who uses religious fanaticism to depose...." Sounds a lot like another world leader I can think of :)
think that thought through before you so cavalierly express your irrational hatred of Bush. If you say that Bush is a terrorist leader, then you are also saying that our soldiers are morally equivalent to the 9-11 hijackers.
and that's just downright stupid.
and your bitch is the obvious "believe anything bad about bush no matter how ridiculous" response we've come to expect from "progressives".
the memo cited was rpesented late january 2001. it didn't talk about any specific threats and bascially just asked for clarification about what responses we should do against al-queda.
the problem with the view that clarke was disgruntled becasue the administration wouldn't listen to him about al-queda is that clarke wasn't concerned with al-queda when he left. instead he was the "cyberterrorism" czar and he was pissed that the adminsitration wasn't taking "cyberterrorism" seriously enough.
i'm sorry, but noone has ever died becasue of "cyberterrorism" and focusing on military actions against terrorism sponsoring states (like afghanistan and iraq) should certainly take precedence, no matter what clarke thought.
-bk
as much as some people feel the need to whitewash Clarke's motives, the reality is that thee is a very real motive for this guy to cover his ass.
he didn't come out and start complaining until after he was let go and it became obvious that an inquiry into intelligence failures of 9-11 were going to happen.
he quickly jumped on the "not me" wagon by trying to control the discussion. he did this by pointing fingers at everyone else in the hopes that people wouldn't notice that he spent most of his time at counter-terror advisor in the 90's concerned about non-existent Y2K and "cyberterrorism" problems when he should have been more interested in Osama bin-Laden and Al-Queda.
-bk
those damn unscrupulous righties!
of course, these "scare numbers" were front page news and accepted without question when al gore presented them to help bolster his idea of a "social security lock box".
anyne who says they can tell you what tax revenues will be like in 75 years is just trying to sell you on a political point of view.
interesting related statistic that i was surprised to find out the other day.
in the 350 years of the spanish inquisition, there were a total of less than 40,000 people killed.
that's not even a decent day under a communist dictator.
uh, yeah. my relevant (and even funny) critique above was modded down to -1 offtopic (after being modded up for insightful).
/. have come out full force to back this film.
it's quite obvious that the tin-foil hat liberal knee-jerk crowd here at
the irony is that all you guys are making my main point for me.
that point being moore built this film custom tailored to get $9/pop from an energized crowd. he is selling anti-bush propaganda to people who already hate bush and he's making a killing off it.
people who are immune to tin-foil hat conspiracies, contradictions or flat out falshoods are not going to be influenced by this film.
i do have to give moore credit for knowing his audience and knowing what they would be willing to pay for.
-bk
Do I need a movie to tell me that Bush is a prick, and shouldn't be running the country, much less a goddamn lemonade stand? NO
i believe you just made my point for me.
thanks!
-bk
and formed a completely different opinion of the film. the film was custom tailored to bush haters and the tin-foil hat crowd. it started out with a bang in the first 10 minutes by espousing alternate histories of what happened in the 2000 election followed by several paranoid conspiracies (including bush helped plan 9-11 and bush went into afghanistan for oil).
after the first 10 minutes, however, it quickly devolved into long boring stretches of raw footage with no voiceover or script. it seemed to me he was trying to stretch the film into feature length just so he could charge $9/pop for it.
i can't really blame him. it certainly can't be easy to make a documentary from falsehoods and far out innuendo.
picture this:
you are michael moore. you've got all the footage for your movie and you are in the editing process. you're sitting at your computer with your box of donuts carefully crafting your next lie and innuendo. your carefully researched script has you saying in a voiceover "george bush made the claim that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a claim that no other president or politician made before him." you've decided to show a video clip of bill clinton looking all presidential with his "i feel your pain" look on his face. while you are editing this together, you hear in the background a cnn report that shows bill clinton and al gore making claims that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
you curse loudly and quickly edit the script and the video footage in hopes that your finished film won't make you look like a complete retard.
your next clip you decided to find footage for is the one where you say "people who join the military are statistically more likely to abuse their spouse, kick their dog, have sex with goats and murder people with dark skin." you find some footage of goofy looking servicemen having sex with goats to put into your movie at this point. after you've put it all in and made it for your final movie, one of your editors says "i think that might be going a little overboard with the anti-soldier rhetoric, maybe we ought to take it out." when your other editors agree, you fly off in a rage throwing the box of krispy kremes across the room, before you edit out the most overt anti-soldier footage in the film.
after all the editing is said and done and you think you got out all the stuff that is blatantly false as well as the stuff that will show what you really think about america and the troops, you are left with 10 minutes of a film. the election is coming near and you realize that at the pace you are going, you will miss the push that the election will give to your movie and you won't make anywhere near the amount of money that you hope to. so you decide to show long stretches of footage of a woman who lost her son in iraq and the grief she feels over it. don't worry about a script, perhaps the first ten minutes of tin-foil hat conspiracies will be enough to satiate the nutcases and bush-haters.
unfortunately, when you film is done, in the can and in distributor's hands, it's clear that you missed editing out many of the falsehoods that make you look like a tard, but you hang on to the hope that the french film festival will look past the factual errors, contradictions and general boringness of the film and only be able to see it's direct anti-americanism. knowing that it doesn't require a good salesman to sell anti-americanism to the french or liberal elites, you hope that it's enough to get their praise.
your hopes come true and you have donut money for the rest of your life.
in all, i think this film was built to appeal to the paranoid choir and as such has no chance of convincing anyone who isn't already convinced.
-bk
novell's groupwise client for linux is actually a crossplatform client written in java.
also, the administration tool for novell products (ConsoleOne) is written in java and runs under linux just fine.
-bk
frist post
all the gullible people actually believing the our intelligence services are that gullible.