This "Government" - including the highest courts in the judiciary - have recently held forth on the proposition, that for legal purposes, prisoners in extra-judicial detention by the military and executive agencies are not "persons".
Therefore, they are not afforded Constitutional guarantees for persons.
Simultaneously, the rights of corporations as 'persons' for First Amendment protections - among others - is upheld.
What is wrong with this picture?
If you try and rationalise this situation, you are put in the position of "the good Gerrmans".
The worst are American Liberals - completely enabling the subversion of basic rights and law, through rational acceptance of evil.
Well, JC, that's an interesting line of argumentation, but I'm not sure that you've accurately captured the legal developments and arguments.
Nor am I competent to rehash their arguments either. I'm neither a lawyer nor schooled in the minutia of what has unfolded.
What I can offer is that the situation is a little more complex than some bumper-sticker like "Corporations are valued more highly than people". As far as corporate personhood goes, I know nothing. Empirically, we seem to enjoy a fairly high standard of living, so perhaps corporate personhood hasn't completely sucked. WRT the prisoners, consider that there is a hierarchy of law. International, federal, state, local. For stuff which we're full signatories, International law equals federal law. Countries have something akin to a line-item veto on treaties and conventions, and thus you have to pay particular attention to which country, treaty, and clause you mean when making an assertion about who is in breach.
The drift of globalization seems to be to scrunch everything into a single world government. The economies are increasingly tied, and treaties like the UN Law of the Sea Convention are increasingly trying to set up bodies with jurisdiction over countries.
The United States has a consistent record of protesting all provisions attempting to undermine sovereignty.
The various Geneva Conventions attempt to regulate violence between sovereign nations. The UN charter is honored more in the breach with respect to violence between sovereign nations.
Merely using the phrase "prisoners in extra-judicial detention" requires a full review. If you're going to say that the minute the US military takes prisoners of war that the prisoners somehow fall under US civil law, you are going to have an uphill battle ahead of you to prove your point. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not a sympathetic character. Attempts to treat him even slightly like a US citizen for legal purposes leave me, and I'll daresay, practically everyone who's ever sworn "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" completely cold. Not that I'm a fan of waterboarding. Or even capital punishment. The reason that we tend not to come out with blanket policy definitions on things like torture is not so much an endorsement of sadism, but a recognition that keeping the ROE vague avoids limitations and precedents that can grown in unforeseen directions.
Rather than corporate citizenship, precedents like Guantanamo bring the various entitlements for retirement and medical care to mind. Driven by fear, guilt, and a non-command of the context of the situation, granting everyone on the planet all available US rights, privileges and government services, irrespective of mass-murders in which they may have been involved, treaties violated, or what have you, seems a salve for the conscience of some.
While by no means perfect, the folks in the government are generally attempting to carry out the law of the land, as derived from the Constitution and obfuscated by the mound of subsequent documents.
Reform, as with a really nasty codebase, is a matter of simplification.
Which, as recent attempts to improve some sacred-cow entitlements shows, is a mother of a challenge.
Unions make a great deal of sense when there is significant worker exploitation afoot, e.g. the Industrial Revolution.
That's what's missing.
Other than that, unions quite often seem a solution in search of a problem.
So, if we save off the precise state of your existence, does that allow you to go back to it at any point?
In some future MondoByte()* storage system, do you have some SVN repository of yourself that you can go back to at will?
In addition to teleporting, the idea brings up some cloning, immortality, and Groundhog Day aspects.
*This is a function for calculating big storage. Take the biggest amount currently under discussion, (is it currently petabyte?) and raise it by a power of two. Future-proof you storage remarks!
Bah. Just go floating point. Only WoWses are afraid of exponents. Think how non-Progressive we would be in reality if our national debt were saddled by such limitations, instead of being allowed to blossom and spread, kudzu-like, until nothing less than an arbitrary-precision library can manage the vast expanse of non-wealth.
I think unit tests are actually better, for code that is suited to being driven externally.
Pick a tool to wrap something, start writing little bits to excercise the code.
You can comment and version unit tests, giving a sense of history.
Debuggers, on the other hand, mostly exist in the present tense.
Sure, you learn something now, but how about some breadcrumbs for later?
Not necessarily. If the main VBA users are the PC-based ones, then MS could drop Mac support, retain PC, and the story is "reasonably" clear.
In any case, with the number of people involved in frobnicating the decision, there really isn't a need to label anyone a liar. Policies are variables, not constants, and get new values assigned to them frequently during business execution.
I guess these social scientist types derive their funding from trying to map distinctions upon each generation.
The next generation is still people, at least until the biochemists succeed in making substantial tweaks to the DNA.
OK, they're impatient. OK, they have some motor skill advantage from years of video games. Whoopee. Reality will temper the new generation far more than the generation tempers reality.
Sure, it sucks.
However, he'll probably end up with greater notoriety as a result of this than had he been blessed with normal feet.
If he's got the personal charisma, he can pick up where Lance Armstrong has (arguably) left off.
There are things in life that were for me as important as I infer the Olympics were for him.
For me, the Marcellus Wallace quote about pride pertains in moments like this.
Actually, it sounds like you're using the appropriate tool for the job.
This is, you understand, not as common as it should be.
What fascinates me is the people who tout the tree view as the be-all-end-all, but then don't say much when the data turn out to be a full-on graph. Whoops!
Let me (perhaps over-) simplify this for you. Stupid Question Language (SQL) does great for two dimensional sets of data. Special Peoples' Advanced Retarded Question language (SPARQL) is meant for return results from tree-shaped lumps of textual data, and lets you use regular expressions to figure out where you are in the tree and match nodes and attributes and stuff.
I think smart money is going to continue to arrange data in sets, and in five years, your SQL knowledge will still be serving you in quite good stead.
If 'hang' means wander about endlessly looking for a simple feature, sure.
Most would have said 'starve' in that context, but the First Ammendment is a beautfiul thing.
I suppose we can expect a precipitous drop in/. postings from companies with this stuff implemented...
Don't read any of the complaint.
When they ask you to enter the plea, you say:
"Oh, we thought we were members of the US Congress faced with a piece of legislation. Dont tase me, bro."
Worked for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, JC, that's an interesting line of argumentation, but I'm not sure that you've accurately captured the legal developments and arguments.
Nor am I competent to rehash their arguments either. I'm neither a lawyer nor schooled in the minutia of what has unfolded.
What I can offer is that the situation is a little more complex than some bumper-sticker like "Corporations are valued more highly than people".
As far as corporate personhood goes, I know nothing. Empirically, we seem to enjoy a fairly high standard of living, so perhaps corporate personhood hasn't completely sucked.
WRT the prisoners, consider that there is a hierarchy of law. International, federal, state, local. For stuff which we're full signatories, International law equals federal law. Countries have something akin to a line-item veto on treaties and conventions, and thus you have to pay particular attention to which country, treaty, and clause you mean when making an assertion about who is in breach.
The drift of globalization seems to be to scrunch everything into a single world government. The economies are increasingly tied, and treaties like the UN Law of the Sea Convention are increasingly trying to set up bodies with jurisdiction over countries.
The United States has a consistent record of protesting all provisions attempting to undermine sovereignty.
The various Geneva Conventions attempt to regulate violence between sovereign nations. The UN charter is honored more in the breach with respect to violence between sovereign nations.
Merely using the phrase "prisoners in extra-judicial detention" requires a full review. If you're going to say that the minute the US military takes prisoners of war that the prisoners somehow fall under US civil law, you are going to have an uphill battle ahead of you to prove your point. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not a sympathetic character. Attempts to treat him even slightly like a US citizen for legal purposes leave me, and I'll daresay, practically everyone who's ever sworn "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" completely cold. Not that I'm a fan of waterboarding. Or even capital punishment. The reason that we tend not to come out with blanket policy definitions on things like torture is not so much an endorsement of sadism, but a recognition that keeping the ROE vague avoids limitations and precedents that can grown in unforeseen directions.
Rather than corporate citizenship, precedents like Guantanamo bring the various entitlements for retirement and medical care to mind. Driven by fear, guilt, and a non-command of the context of the situation, granting everyone on the planet all available US rights, privileges and government services, irrespective of mass-murders in which they may have been involved, treaties violated, or what have you, seems a salve for the conscience of some.
While by no means perfect, the folks in the government are generally attempting to carry out the law of the land, as derived from the Constitution and obfuscated by the mound of subsequent documents.
Reform, as with a really nasty codebase, is a matter of simplification.
Which, as recent attempts to improve some sacred-cow entitlements shows, is a mother of a challenge.
That's what's missing.
Other than that, unions quite often seem a solution in search of a problem.
Nah, a good UNION is one within an SQL query.
So, if we save off the precise state of your existence, does that allow you to go back to it at any point?
In some future MondoByte()* storage system, do you have some SVN repository of yourself that you can go back to at will?
In addition to teleporting, the idea brings up some cloning, immortality, and Groundhog Day aspects.
*This is a function for calculating big storage. Take the biggest amount currently under discussion, (is it currently petabyte?) and raise it by a power of two. Future-proof you storage remarks!
You forgot to mention resources, you insensitive clod.
Bah. Just go floating point. Only WoWses are afraid of exponents. Think how non-Progressive we would be in reality if our national debt were saddled by such limitations, instead of being allowed to blossom and spread, kudzu-like, until nothing less than an arbitrary-precision library can manage the vast expanse of non-wealth.
I think unit tests are actually better, for code that is suited to being driven externally.
Pick a tool to wrap something, start writing little bits to excercise the code.
You can comment and version unit tests, giving a sense of history.
Debuggers, on the other hand, mostly exist in the present tense.
Sure, you learn something now, but how about some breadcrumbs for later?
Not necessarily. If the main VBA users are the PC-based ones, then MS could drop Mac support, retain PC, and the story is "reasonably" clear.
In any case, with the number of people involved in frobnicating the decision, there really isn't a need to label anyone a liar. Policies are variables, not constants, and get new values assigned to them frequently during business execution.
Is that so much 'impatience' as in an uncontrolled impulsiveness, or 'intolerance' as in keeping the deja vu count nice and low?
V - B - A
Easy as one, two, thray,
Do arrays the mangled way,
Rather Python any day,
Market penetration means you stay,
OK, this post is turni--
I guess these social scientist types derive their funding from trying to map distinctions upon each generation.
The next generation is still people, at least until the biochemists succeed in making substantial tweaks to the DNA.
OK, they're impatient. OK, they have some motor skill advantage from years of video games. Whoopee. Reality will temper the new generation far more than the generation tempers reality.
There will be some smartcard that will diminish the anonymity, and make it challenging to operated outside of the approved application set.
Pardon, but for those of us just a little behind the power curve, which new overlords were these, that me way properly welcome them?
My remark has to do with activities outside of sports, bedroom or otherwise.
Sure, it sucks.
However, he'll probably end up with greater notoriety as a result of this than had he been blessed with normal feet.
If he's got the personal charisma, he can pick up where Lance Armstrong has (arguably) left off.
There are things in life that were for me as important as I infer the Olympics were for him.
For me, the Marcellus Wallace quote about pride pertains in moments like this.
Actually, it sounds like you're using the appropriate tool for the job.
This is, you understand, not as common as it should be.
What fascinates me is the people who tout the tree view as the be-all-end-all, but then don't say much when the data turn out to be a full-on graph. Whoops!
Gene Wolfe forever!
On row, seven columns.
I guess it's a bun fight over whether a column is a dimension.
Let me (perhaps over-) simplify this for you.
Stupid Question Language (SQL) does great for two dimensional sets of data.
Special Peoples' Advanced Retarded Question language (SPARQL) is meant for return results from tree-shaped lumps of textual data, and lets you use regular expressions to figure out where you are in the tree and match nodes and attributes and stuff.
I think smart money is going to continue to arrange data in sets, and in five years, your SQL knowledge will still be serving you in quite good stead.
If 'hang' means wander about endlessly looking for a simple feature, sure. /. postings from companies with this stuff implemented...
Most would have said 'starve' in that context, but the First Ammendment is a beautfiul thing.
I suppose we can expect a precipitous drop in
I liked the shield feature in Asteroids Deluxe better than the hyperspace feature in the original, though.
Don't read any of the complaint.
When they ask you to enter the plea, you say:
"Oh, we thought we were members of the US Congress faced with a piece of legislation. Dont tase me, bro."
Worked for me.
No one ever contended that. The contention is that, when the inevitable conflicts occur, the user is not disenfranchised.