I military aviation, we have all of that you mention plus, on the topographical maps, the horozontal distance is in kilometers (metric) and the vertical distance/elevation is in feet! The good thing is the altimiter is in feet too, but still...
So, maybe I'm a little dense today, but what do you mean by "the west"?
Not dense, maybe you just read the wrong sources, i.e., those shy on key facts.
"The West" = Western Civilization, i.e., Western European style culture to include government.
All of the victims that I have mentoned were attacked in the name of a "struggle with the west", in the words of the attackers themselves. They have also been targeted as being "Chriastianity at war with Islam", such as (not previously mentioned) Australia's support for reforms in East Timor, being condemned by Bin Laden himself.
All you have to do is listen to what the attackers are saying, they are not a bit shy about telling all the world why they are attacking.
I agree that the locations of the attacks are not all in the west, I am referring to what the attackers themselves are stating.
They don't hate the west. They hate America. That's your problem, not mine. So, that is why "they" attacked Australians in Bali? Is that why "they" attacked Christian Pakastanis in Pakistan? Is that why "they" attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel (while the flight of the missiles, not coincidentally, missed Jordan)? Is that why "they" blew up a french oil tanker? Is that why "they" attack so many other non-US targets around the world?
I don't think so. Seems that *some* need to wake up to the fact that just because the US gets some headline-grabbing attacks, the war is against "the west", not just the US.
I am not a chemist, so I searched all those names in the best source I know (which is here [scorecard.org]), and found that Dihydrogen Oxide is a fancy name of water (H2O).
The question people should be asking here is simply... do we need yet another hideously expensive combat aircraft?
As long as those are the only types of militaries we have to fight, no not really.
If we have to defend: Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or Israel (ok, they would probably be defending us) then, yes we do need the ultimate fighter for swift air superiority.
What about Tobor the 8 Man that I used to watch on the Ray Rayner Show when I was a kid? He was cutting edge "Japan invading the cartoon industry" stuffn and he could do anything!
They're going to blockade her ports and refuse to sell food to her?
That's a little overkill, isn't it?
LOL, when I read the title I thought they were giving her an authorization to continue the assault on Apple. Like the classic movie "The Eiger Sanction" with Clint Eastwood.
Well, that has been upgraded at least for Defense Contractors and the Army.
My last renewal was done through some clearance form program (I have it somewhere). My son, applying for a higher clearance than I, used the same thing.
But I do remember the days, not that long ago, where new employees were handed a book, essentually, to fill out and send.
In an intact nation, the military must never be concerned about due process, or constitutional rights, or body of evidence, or taking extraordinary measures to protect civilians.
I am not sure who's military you are talking about, but that entire sentence is contrary to US military policy.
When in the role of riot control everybody in the chain of command is reminded, beaten over the head, that they can not arrest anybody they can only detain people until a law enforcement officer can arrest them. The rules for detention are spelled out in great detail, all because of Constitutional issues.
Goot point. Note that the Congress Posse Comitatus already has the rules in place too. It is not a situation where a special bill will be required whenever a plane needs to be launched.
BTW, the restrictions are not fuzzy either. When I was actually in uniform, we could drive/fly civilian law enforcement wherever they needed to go, but we could not even so much as direct traffic (on civilian streets) when we got there. Same with other missions.
The National Guard could fly BATF/DEA/local cops all over, but firing a weapon other than in self defense, even to destroy contraban, was prohibited.
In this case, the military is flying an airplane around and cops are in the plane getting information on suspected vehicles gathered by the military. Can't get into much more of a support role than that.
For a start, the US are not following its own standards for acceptable behavior and its own standards for justice in that nice little prison camp in Cuba.
Would you please expand on this? The detainees are being treated just as of they were real POWs. Please show proof to the contrary.
Not now maybe after the international outcry at keeping foreign national in cages with no due process. As another poster said habeus corpus seems to have gone from the US legal system.
If this "outcry" is from people with your knowledge, it is fine by me.
"Due process" applies to those accused of crimes, NOT those captured as a result of war actions. Military prisoners got their "due process" when they failed to evade or kill those chasing them down. They have no "sentance" coming, they will be released when time for repatriation comes around, unless they are accused of war crimes.
No need to produce bodies for an trial not required.
Name one German or Italian WW I or II POW that was granted anything you are saying the detainees need to be granted.
Shame about the international criminal court 'though.
All I have to say to that is... HUH? The body grantig the exemption said oaky as long as the accused were tried in the US.
And didn't the US administration say that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the detainees as they aren't members of a recognised army or some such?
No, they said that the detainees are unprotected combatantants under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. The topic was covered there, the detainees are thusly covered and manybe you need to read up on this before your foot makes it to your colin the long way.
Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. Therefore the U.S. can not hold someone as an enemy combatant under the laws of war, because the U.S. is officially not at war.
Not required under the US Constitution, nor the Laws of War. Please cite your proof, others have posted the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions in other posts under this general thread. They are correct and you are wrong. Please cite your proof.
As posted by others, under the Constitution, Geneva Convention and the UCMJ US troops can be deployed in this effort as well as take unprotected combatants and hold them until cessation of hostilities and repatriation. Please post your refrences in law to the contrary.
Since according to international treaties and the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has no other way to hold someone prisoner without a specific accusation of a crime, the U.S. is violating fundamental human rights at the moment.
Please post proof of this too. ANY country can hold unprotected OR regular/protected combatants until the cessation of hostilities and repatriation. This has been demonstrated by other posts and properly refrenced. Please post your proof to the contrary.
The Geneva Conventions do not require a declairation of war for a state of hostilities to exist. Please post your proof of this to the contrary. Others have posted proof that you are wrong on this point too.
If they vote "by voice", are the individual votes documented anywhere? Is this just a ploy to pass something controversial, but then not be hold accountable for your votes?
Umm, your comment seems to be weighed a bit on the negative.
EVERY bill in the House gets a "voice vote". The Speaker or his acting Speaker calls for a vote, all in favor say "aye" all opposed say "nay".
The opinion of the chair calls the vote. If ANY member on the floor calls for "the yeas and nays" they have a recorded vote by electronic device. The electronic system replaced the "role call vote."
It was never constructed to be a slick/fast vote, with every vowel recorded, type system.
Representative democracy in action..
Yes, consult "Robert's Rules of Order" and the Rules of the House and Senate for further information.
Hrm, quite a number of people would disagree with your views that they are not being mistreated.
Judging from the comments, that is fine with me. No C programmer cares if I disagree with them because I know nothing of the C language. At least I refrain from spreading falsehoods based on my own ignorance of C programming.
There conditions are hardly comfortable. You're also "being slow about" giving them any kind of trial or legal representation. Also, as others have pointed out, the US is very keen not to call them POWs as that would give them rights which they are determined not to allow. What I would ask is what kind of noises would be coming out of the US if American citizens were being held in similar conditions, with no trial in a middle east country? They should, very rightly, be outraged.
Try getting their status straight and then realize that we are treating them properly. They are not under arrest, they are combatant detainees. We can hold them as long as hostilities persist. Again, try learning something of this before declairing things "illegal" that are well within the bounds of the Laws of War.
As for "one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace", I'd like to point out that the US has demanded (and unfortunately, gotten) concessions that no US military personnel can be tried for war crimes on UN missions.
Incorrect again. We are not bound by that "International Kangaroo Court", we are still bound by the Laws of War and our military is still bound by the UCMJ (look that up too).
This effectively gives US soldiers carte blanche to rape, pillage and burn in a manner that would make the atrocities in the Balkans seems like a Sunday School picnic with no chance of war crimes charges ever being laid. They may get some kind of court martial or charges laid in the US court or they may not. There would be no recourse for an aggrieved party in the Internation Courts.
Self contradicting while using wholly inaccurate assertions is bad form.
As mentioned above they are covered by the UCMJ. All acts you mentioned are violations under the UCMJ that carry quite severe punishments. We have a history of actually prosecuting our own people under the UCMJ to the fullest extent. The "some kind of court[sic] martial or charges laid in the US court" is, in fact, a US Military court and is not quite the same as a civilian court. Hardly what you state or infer. However, the defendants do get lawyers taken from the same pool as the prosicution. Unless you are against the accused having a right to ADIQUATE counsel then perhaps you can bark up another tree before you join your brothers and sisters in Bali.
The more I hear about the US in recent times, the more I despair about a nation that claims to be the home of Democracy.
Republic.
I have my own rant [riddoch.org] about another such incident, which you're free to read.
I have read quite enough from you. Please excuse me if I skip it.
2. "not far off"? If our intent were to shoot POWs in Cuba, we sure are being slow about it. They are not even being mistreated!
3. You are slamming one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace, to include prosicuting our own military people that violate said laws.
I take back the Offtopic comment, you are just a troll.
The JATO story was in WIRED magazine about two years ago as an interview/narrative by the alleged creator of the vehicle. Check WIRED.com in the archives. Was in print and in web edition too. I really do not buy this version either, but to each their own.
BTW, I did submit the story to/., as I am sure zillions of others did, but I never saw a refrence to the WIRED story here:(
Slashdot Mirror
I military aviation, we have all of that you mention plus, on the topographical maps, the horozontal distance is in kilometers (metric) and the vertical distance/elevation is in feet! The good thing is the altimiter is in feet too, but still...
1. Get a CUSTOM form written by a sleezy lawyer absolvig you of all responsibility and have an Principle of the firm sign it.
2. Get a raise, in writing, for the new monumentous duties.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!!
So, maybe I'm a little dense today, but what do you mean by "the west"?
Not dense, maybe you just read the wrong sources, i.e., those shy on key facts.
"The West" = Western Civilization, i.e., Western European style culture to include government.
All of the victims that I have mentoned were attacked in the name of a "struggle with the west", in the words of the attackers themselves. They have also been targeted as being "Chriastianity at war with Islam", such as (not previously mentioned) Australia's support for reforms in East Timor, being condemned by Bin Laden himself.
All you have to do is listen to what the attackers are saying, they are not a bit shy about telling all the world why they are attacking.
I agree that the locations of the attacks are not all in the west, I am referring to what the attackers themselves are stating.
They don't hate the west. They hate America. That's your problem, not mine.
So, that is why "they" attacked Australians in Bali? Is that why "they" attacked Christian Pakastanis in Pakistan? Is that why "they" attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel (while the flight of the missiles, not coincidentally, missed Jordan)? Is that why "they" blew up a french oil tanker? Is that why "they" attack so many other non-US targets around the world?
I don't think so. Seems that *some* need to wake up to the fact that just because the US gets some headline-grabbing attacks, the war is against "the west", not just the US.
I am not a chemist, so I searched all those names in the best source I know (which is here [scorecard.org]), and found that Dihydrogen Oxide is a fancy name of water (H2O).
pssssst... doode... over here...
it is a joke, but don't tell anybody else, okay?
There are other possibilities too. The US Environmental Assessment Center web page lists many dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Maybe this is a new one?
Some industry zealots say it is all just FUD, but I am not so sure. They seem to be members of a violent political party too.
The question people should be asking here is simply... do we need yet another hideously expensive combat aircraft?
As long as those are the only types of militaries we have to fight, no not really.
If we have to defend: Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or Israel (ok, they would probably be defending us) then, yes we do need the ultimate fighter for swift air superiority.
If you put them in the garage together do they fight like hell until one is dismembered?
I think I saw a documentry on these things on an educational cable channel, like Comedy Central or TNN.
What about Tobor the 8 Man that I used to watch on the Ray Rayner Show when I was a kid? He was cutting edge "Japan invading the cartoon industry" stuffn and he could do anything!
They're going to blockade her ports and refuse to sell food to her?
That's a little overkill, isn't it?
LOL, when I read the title I thought they were giving her an authorization to continue the assault on Apple. Like the classic movie "The Eiger Sanction" with Clint Eastwood.
The Buggy Whip Manufacturer's association is calling for legeslation to restrict, license and tax "horsless carrages" citing safety concerns.
Traveling Theater Companies call for legeslation to regulate the new "moving pictures" industry, citing flickering and health concerns.
The dairy industry seeks non-dairy product regulation and distinctive markings so that consumers will not be "duped" by "inferior" products.
Television networks are calling for increased regulation of Cable and Satellite Television providers citing "unfair competition".
Looks like these movie guys are a little slow on the uptake with the same old false logic.
Well, that has been upgraded at least for Defense Contractors and the Army.
My last renewal was done through some clearance form program (I have it somewhere). My son, applying for a higher clearance than I, used the same thing.
But I do remember the days, not that long ago, where new employees were handed a book, essentually, to fill out and send.
In an intact nation, the military must never be concerned about due process, or constitutional rights, or body of evidence, or taking extraordinary measures to protect civilians.
I am not sure who's military you are talking about, but that entire sentence is contrary to US military policy.
When in the role of riot control everybody in the chain of command is reminded, beaten over the head, that they can not arrest anybody they can only detain people until a law enforcement officer can arrest them. The rules for detention are spelled out in great detail, all because of Constitutional issues.
Goot point. Note that the Congress Posse Comitatus already has the rules in place too. It is not a situation where a special bill will be required whenever a plane needs to be launched.
BTW, the restrictions are not fuzzy either. When I was actually in uniform, we could drive/fly civilian law enforcement wherever they needed to go, but we could not even so much as direct traffic (on civilian streets) when we got there. Same with other missions.
The National Guard could fly BATF/DEA/local cops all over, but firing a weapon other than in self defense, even to destroy contraban, was prohibited.
In this case, the military is flying an airplane around and cops are in the plane getting information on suspected vehicles gathered by the military. Can't get into much more of a support role than that.
For a start, the US are not following its own standards for acceptable behavior and its own standards for justice in that nice little prison camp in Cuba.
Would you please expand on this? The detainees are being treated just as of they were real POWs. Please show proof to the contrary.
Please, for CRYING OUT LOUD, PLEASE name the "things like this are covered by _international_ law, like the Geneva Convention and such..."!!!
Name the Article of the Conventions and cite the "_international_law" you folks keep referring to.
Others have posted links to the Gineva Conventions that contradict you and they still do not trump the US Constitution as far as US law is concerned.
Not now maybe after the international outcry at keeping foreign national in cages with no due process. As another poster said habeus corpus seems to have gone from the US legal system.
If this "outcry" is from people with your knowledge, it is fine by me.
"Due process" applies to those accused of crimes, NOT those captured as a result of war actions. Military prisoners got their "due process" when they failed to evade or kill those chasing them down. They have no "sentance" coming, they will be released when time for repatriation comes around, unless they are accused of war crimes.
No need to produce bodies for an trial not required.
Name one German or Italian WW I or II POW that was granted anything you are saying the detainees need to be granted.
Shame about the international criminal court 'though.
All I have to say to that is... HUH? The body grantig the exemption said oaky as long as the accused were tried in the US.
And didn't the US administration say that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the detainees as they aren't members of a recognised army or some such?
No, they said that the detainees are unprotected combatantants under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. The topic was covered there, the detainees are thusly covered and manybe you need to read up on this before your foot makes it to your colin the long way.
Somehow I seem to have missed a Declaration of War by the U.S. Congress. Therefore the U.S. can not hold someone as an enemy combatant under the laws of war, because the U.S. is officially not at war.
Not required under the US Constitution, nor the Laws of War. Please cite your proof, others have posted the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions in other posts under this general thread. They are correct and you are wrong. Please cite your proof.
As posted by others, under the Constitution, Geneva Convention and the UCMJ US troops can be deployed in this effort as well as take unprotected combatants and hold them until cessation of hostilities and repatriation. Please post your refrences in law to the contrary.
Since according to international treaties and the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government has no other way to hold someone prisoner without a specific accusation of a crime, the U.S. is violating fundamental human rights at the moment.
Please post proof of this too. ANY country can hold unprotected OR regular/protected combatants until the cessation of hostilities and repatriation. This has been demonstrated by other posts and properly refrenced. Please post your proof to the contrary.
The Geneva Conventions do not require a declairation of war for a state of hostilities to exist. Please post your proof of this to the contrary. Others have posted proof that you are wrong on this point too.
If they vote "by voice", are the individual votes documented anywhere? Is this just a ploy to pass something controversial, but then not be hold accountable for your votes?
Umm, your comment seems to be weighed a bit on the negative.
EVERY bill in the House gets a "voice vote". The Speaker or his acting Speaker calls for a vote, all in favor say "aye" all opposed say "nay".
The opinion of the chair calls the vote. If ANY member on the floor calls for "the yeas and nays" they have a recorded vote by electronic device. The electronic system replaced the "role call vote."
It was never constructed to be a slick/fast vote, with every vowel recorded, type system.
Representative democracy in action..
Yes, consult "Robert's Rules of Order" and the Rules of the House and Senate for further information.
I like your style!
;-)
If you are really Anne Coulter, will you marry me? How's that for covering "the ask"
Actually, unprivileged combatant, illegal combatant and irregular combatant are interchangable.
Hrm, quite a number of people would disagree with your views that they are not being mistreated.
Judging from the comments, that is fine with me. No C programmer cares if I disagree with them because I know nothing of the C language. At least I refrain from spreading falsehoods based on my own ignorance of C programming.
There conditions are hardly comfortable. You're also "being slow about" giving them any kind of trial or legal representation. Also, as others have pointed out, the US is very keen not to call them POWs as that would give them rights which they are determined not to allow. What I would ask is what kind of noises would be coming out of the US if American citizens were being held in similar conditions, with no trial in a middle east country? They should, very rightly, be outraged.
Try getting their status straight and then realize that we are treating them properly. They are not under arrest, they are combatant detainees. We can hold them as long as hostilities persist. Again, try learning something of this before declairing things "illegal" that are well within the bounds of the Laws of War.
As for "one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace", I'd like to point out that the US has demanded (and unfortunately, gotten) concessions that no US military personnel can be tried for war crimes on UN missions.
Incorrect again. We are not bound by that "International Kangaroo Court", we are still bound by the Laws of War and our military is still bound by the UCMJ (look that up too).
This effectively gives US soldiers carte blanche to rape, pillage and burn in a manner that would make the atrocities in the Balkans seems like a Sunday School picnic with no chance of war crimes charges ever being laid. They may get some kind of court martial or charges laid in the US court or they may not. There would be no recourse for an aggrieved party in the Internation Courts.
Self contradicting while using wholly inaccurate assertions is bad form.
As mentioned above they are covered by the UCMJ. All acts you mentioned are violations under the UCMJ that carry quite severe punishments. We have a history of actually prosecuting our own people under the UCMJ to the fullest extent. The "some kind of court[sic] martial or charges laid in the US court" is, in fact, a US Military court and is not quite the same as a civilian court. Hardly what you state or infer. However, the defendants do get lawyers taken from the same pool as the prosicution. Unless you are against the accused having a right to ADIQUATE counsel then perhaps you can bark up another tree before you join your brothers and sisters in Bali.
The more I hear about the US in recent times, the more I despair about a nation that claims to be the home of Democracy.
Republic.
I have my own rant [riddoch.org] about another such incident, which you're free to read.
I have read quite enough from you. Please excuse me if I skip it.
http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Active_Issues/graphic/grap hic.html
passed Senate by Unanimous Consent
(similar to voice vote in House)
passed House by Voice Vote
Interesting? More like Offtopic.
1. The quote is well over the top.
2. "not far off"? If our intent were to shoot POWs in Cuba, we sure are being slow about it. They are not even being mistreated!
3. You are slamming one of the FEW nations that follows the Laws of War and Peace, to include prosicuting our own military people that violate said laws.
I take back the Offtopic comment, you are just a troll.
Those pesky Martians!
First they shoot down our spacecraft, now this!
The JATO story was in WIRED magazine about two years ago as an interview/narrative by the alleged creator of the vehicle. Check WIRED.com in the archives. Was in print and in web edition too. I really do not buy this version either, but to each their own.
/., as I am sure zillions of others did, but I never saw a refrence to the WIRED story here :(
BTW, I did submit the story to