Didn't people make the same argument against Jews, Blacks, and physically disabled people? I seem to remember them as Nazis. Sunstein is merely a Nazi in sheep clothing.
1st degree murder Aggravated rape. This doesn't exist as a crime in all states, but it would essentially entail any forcible sexual contact where the victim was not just sexually assaulted, but physically assaulted. There is a extensive, complicated legal definition which sets a very high standard for this crime to occur. So think of it like attempted murder + rape. Torture Genocide Being an accessory to any of the above.
My problem is with the flawed "scientific method" used by environmentalists to justify their actions. They can't get their agenda by popular vote, so they file lawsuits and make an unelected government official enact legislation through judicial diktat. Meanwhile, these same environmentalists have 10,000 square foot mansions, fly in private planes, drive armored Hummers, etc.
My issue here is that environmentalists are more concerned with their so-called "proven science" than they are with the impact on people's lives and the actual effects of their "solutions".
I am from the Central Valley in California, where the Delta Smelt has reduced the available water supply to farmers by 90%. The entire region is in the middle of a drought and bordering on dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres sit unused, covered in tumbleweeds, with the families in poverty because there is no water for them to plant anything and make a living. 5,000 lost jobs seems like a small number, until you consider the agricultural area impacted by these insane policies only has a population of ~250,000.
Then to add insult to injuries, the residents of Los Angeles still have water for their finely manicured lawns.
Did you notice the "=>" sign? That means greater than or equal too. You have proven my point, by saying that water vapor can double the climate warming caused by CO2. Water vapor is a catalyst to global warming. But I do not see the AGW crowd trying to prevent ocean waves from crashing into the coast, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere.
Methane is not discussed because it is not politically convenient. It is easier to demonize some power company burning coal making EVIL profits than it is to demonize some rancher in New Mexico whose family has been raising cattle on that land for 150 years and 100% depend on raising cattle to support themselves and their families. Now, if the same man-made global warming crowd had stock or patents in the fields of lab-grown beef or genetically modified cows with reduced methane emissions, they would be clamoring for the end of cattle farming.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
There are categories of crimes that the general population finds especially heinous, and I would rather the offenders of those crimes get a needle in the arm, and their organs save the lives of others, than pay $70,000 a year for them to live in a cell with cable TV, microwave, and free college courses.
By assorted bad guys, I mean capitol offenses. Like murder, severe cases of rape (say where the victim is permanently disabled, injured, or subjected to torture), genocide, etc. And including the people responsible for arranging said crimes, like Cartels and terrorist leaders.
Murder is an action that is morally objectionable. The definition of the word means the unjustified killing of someone. It is not my standard, I didn't create it. That standard is present in every religion and moral philosophy and I would argue that 99% of the world agrees killing someone for no reason is wrong.
I mostly agree, except for one point. Once someone is convicted of a felony crime, they do loose certain rights. In the US, they loose the right to vote, own a firearm, most of their 4th and 5th amendment protections, etc. While I am not opposed to revoking the 2nd amendment rights of someone convicted of armed robbery, I am opposed to revoking someone's 2nd amendment rights because they are "politically inconvenient".
Do you notice the parallels to this issue and the NSA snooping (not to go off topic). In both cases, when the system is implemented "correctly" (executing violent murderers, snooping of terrorists), nobody has any issue with it. However, the citizenry is concerned with the potential for abuse of these systems. We know the Chinese system is being used for abusive purposes and it is outrageous. What happens when the NSA snooping is abused?
I have no moral dilemma with executing the worst criminal offenders. Charles Manson, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, the world (is/would be) a better place without them in it. But I do not want to execute people who's only crime is exercising their God-given rights, like freedom, liberty, expressing an opinion. Being politically inconvenient to an oppressive communist regime is not a crime worthy of execution. Murdering 29 people and wearing their skin as clothing is.
If these prisoners were serial killers, rapists, murderers and other assorted bad guys, then I fully support using their organs to save lives. I find it poetic justice and a very fitting end for the life of a person who (possibly) killed so many others.
If these prisoners are political prisoners sentenced to death because they were at Tiannamen Square or oppose communism, then I welcome the end of such barbaric policies.
"By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Based on the intelligence received, and the visual images of this gathering, the men were enemy combatants without uniform who had the purpose of waging war. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, it was based on the information present at the time. For example, if soldiers came under fire from a house and returned fire, they would not be committing a war crime. If the house had 20 civilians taped to the walls to provide human shields, the soldiers would still NOT be guilty of war crimes because there was no reasonable method of evading those casualties and no way of knowing about the civilian casualties to begin with.
Perhaps you should go pick up a rifle (like the.45% of our country, myself included) and go over to Afghanistan and experience this first hand. Instead of playing Armchair General. Your Call of Duty rank does not count, nor does your StarCraft rank.
As the AC pointed out, for a vehicle or person to be qualified as a non-combatant (limited to medics and chaplains), their vehicles must be marked with a Red Cross/Red Crescent. Chaplains wear their religious insignia on their uniform to denote their non-combatant status. As AC mentioned, the vehicle did not have the required markings to be an ambulance. Therefore, valid target. And, it also makes the parties driving the van, assuming they were acting as an "ambulance" guilty of war crimes.
Following the Geneva Conventions, ANY enemy combatant is still a combatant until friendly troops have moved their forward line past that person. So if this was a ground-based engagement and the casualties were behind the line of forward progress by friendlies, those casualties are now categorized as POWs and are entitled to protection, first aid, and food/water.
Slashdot Mirror
The rock next to my cabin in the mountains which is 60 miles from the nearest wireless transmission tower.
FYI
Didn't people make the same argument against Jews, Blacks, and physically disabled people? I seem to remember them as Nazis. Sunstein is merely a Nazi in sheep clothing.
It's like a precursor to Sharkando.....
Obligatorily....
How long before the Federal Government mandates such granular tracking on vehicles, guns, kitchen knives, and people?
Since you want to be extremely precise:
1st degree murder
Aggravated rape. This doesn't exist as a crime in all states, but it would essentially entail any forcible sexual contact where the victim was not just sexually assaulted, but physically assaulted. There is a extensive, complicated legal definition which sets a very high standard for this crime to occur. So think of it like attempted murder + rape.
Torture
Genocide
Being an accessory to any of the above.
My problem is with the flawed "scientific method" used by environmentalists to justify their actions. They can't get their agenda by popular vote, so they file lawsuits and make an unelected government official enact legislation through judicial diktat. Meanwhile, these same environmentalists have 10,000 square foot mansions, fly in private planes, drive armored Hummers, etc.
My issue here is that environmentalists are more concerned with their so-called "proven science" than they are with the impact on people's lives and the actual effects of their "solutions".
I am from the Central Valley in California, where the Delta Smelt has reduced the available water supply to farmers by 90%. The entire region is in the middle of a drought and bordering on dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres sit unused, covered in tumbleweeds, with the families in poverty because there is no water for them to plant anything and make a living. 5,000 lost jobs seems like a small number, until you consider the agricultural area impacted by these insane policies only has a population of ~250,000.
Then to add insult to injuries, the residents of Los Angeles still have water for their finely manicured lawns.
Show me one piece of legislation introduced by any government which seeks to regulate methane emissions.
I didn't know all of those sheep were so interesting that they warranted expanded surveillance.
Did you notice the "=>" sign? That means greater than or equal too. You have proven my point, by saying that water vapor can double the climate warming caused by CO2. Water vapor is a catalyst to global warming. But I do not see the AGW crowd trying to prevent ocean waves from crashing into the coast, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere.
Methane is not discussed because it is not politically convenient. It is easier to demonize some power company burning coal making EVIL profits than it is to demonize some rancher in New Mexico whose family has been raising cattle on that land for 150 years and 100% depend on raising cattle to support themselves and their families. Now, if the same man-made global warming crowd had stock or patents in the fields of lab-grown beef or genetically modified cows with reduced methane emissions, they would be clamoring for the end of cattle farming.
NASA does not agree with you. They seem to believe that water vapor is a "major player in climate change".
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
not a prime tornado target
Until Sharknado hits New York and magically travels 800 miles inland.
Since when did government care about the right to privacy?
I completely support someone who kidnaps 3 women, makes those women his slaves, rapes and abuses them over the course of 10 years getting the death penalty. If that person's organs save lives, then even better.
There are categories of crimes that the general population finds especially heinous, and I would rather the offenders of those crimes get a needle in the arm, and their organs save the lives of others, than pay $70,000 a year for them to live in a cell with cable TV, microwave, and free college courses.
By assorted bad guys, I mean capitol offenses. Like murder, severe cases of rape (say where the victim is permanently disabled, injured, or subjected to torture), genocide, etc. And including the people responsible for arranging said crimes, like Cartels and terrorist leaders.
Murder is an action that is morally objectionable. The definition of the word means the unjustified killing of someone. It is not my standard, I didn't create it. That standard is present in every religion and moral philosophy and I would argue that 99% of the world agrees killing someone for no reason is wrong.
I mostly agree, except for one point. Once someone is convicted of a felony crime, they do loose certain rights. In the US, they loose the right to vote, own a firearm, most of their 4th and 5th amendment protections, etc. While I am not opposed to revoking the 2nd amendment rights of someone convicted of armed robbery, I am opposed to revoking someone's 2nd amendment rights because they are "politically inconvenient".
Do you notice the parallels to this issue and the NSA snooping (not to go off topic). In both cases, when the system is implemented "correctly" (executing violent murderers, snooping of terrorists), nobody has any issue with it. However, the citizenry is concerned with the potential for abuse of these systems. We know the Chinese system is being used for abusive purposes and it is outrageous. What happens when the NSA snooping is abused?
I have no moral dilemma with executing the worst criminal offenders. Charles Manson, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, the world (is/would be) a better place without them in it. But I do not want to execute people who's only crime is exercising their God-given rights, like freedom, liberty, expressing an opinion. Being politically inconvenient to an oppressive communist regime is not a crime worthy of execution. Murdering 29 people and wearing their skin as clothing is.
If these prisoners were serial killers, rapists, murderers and other assorted bad guys, then I fully support using their organs to save lives. I find it poetic justice and a very fitting end for the life of a person who (possibly) killed so many others.
If these prisoners are political prisoners sentenced to death because they were at Tiannamen Square or oppose communism, then I welcome the end of such barbaric policies.
+1
"By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Quirin Case in 1942
Based on the intelligence received, and the visual images of this gathering, the men were enemy combatants without uniform who had the purpose of waging war. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, it was based on the information present at the time. For example, if soldiers came under fire from a house and returned fire, they would not be committing a war crime. If the house had 20 civilians taped to the walls to provide human shields, the soldiers would still NOT be guilty of war crimes because there was no reasonable method of evading those casualties and no way of knowing about the civilian casualties to begin with.
Perhaps you should go pick up a rifle (like the .45% of our country, myself included) and go over to Afghanistan and experience this first hand. Instead of playing Armchair General. Your Call of Duty rank does not count, nor does your StarCraft rank.
Your premise is based on the idea that it was a war crime. It was not.
Been there, done that
FTFY
As the AC pointed out, for a vehicle or person to be qualified as a non-combatant (limited to medics and chaplains), their vehicles must be marked with a Red Cross/Red Crescent. Chaplains wear their religious insignia on their uniform to denote their non-combatant status. As AC mentioned, the vehicle did not have the required markings to be an ambulance. Therefore, valid target. And, it also makes the parties driving the van, assuming they were acting as an "ambulance" guilty of war crimes.
Following the Geneva Conventions, ANY enemy combatant is still a combatant until friendly troops have moved their forward line past that person. So if this was a ground-based engagement and the casualties were behind the line of forward progress by friendlies, those casualties are now categorized as POWs and are entitled to protection, first aid, and food/water.