Ah, yes, people like me. You mean the people actually interested in the rule of law? Or the people who can tell the difference between two different arguments? I basically agree that Padilla's treatment probably shouldn't be legal. But guess what? It apparently is. You're not clear about which rights were violated, but at least according to the Wikipedia article, it seems clear that the system had found that his detention was legal.
I guess the fundamental point is that no/. thread can stay on any particular topic.
I'm not missing the point. I'm pointing out the fact that you and the previous poster are talking apples and oranges. As the poster said, get back to us when you can talk about an actual domestic political opponent extradited for torture. Some less than plush treatment and some overzealous police work around some street protests are not the same thing as rounding up Howard Dean and sending him to Syria.
We can also compare how the two countries might deal with people like Padilla, but if you think it's so cut and dried, you might go look up what happened during WW2 to some German saboteurs caught in the US. I agree that rule of law should apply to everyone (regardless of your misinterpretations), but I think you have a distorted view of what the law actually is, and how it gets interpreted and executed.
Let's examine your claim of non-rule of law. Your link says that originally, an appeals court decided among contradictory precedents (Ex parte Quirin vs. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer) that he had a right to habeus corpus. But the Supreme Court rejected the petition due to technical problems with it (if that's not rule of law, what is), so the case was never really decided. After the petition was refiled, his detainment was ruled to be legal. It goes on to state that the "Military Commission Act of 2006 does not apply by its terms to José Padilla," but by the time it was a law, he'd already been indicted and transferred to the civilian justice system.
In any case, you've once again proved how different we are from Iran, which was the real point.
...please now commence rant on imperfections in US to imply that we are as bad as Iran...
Of course, what the intelligence report actually said was that they'd likely stopped their weaponization efforts, which are way off the critical path at this point. They continue to work on uranium enrichment and their missile programs, which are the long poles in the tent. I suppose it's still a good thing if they've stopped working on weaponization, but I wouldn't want to make the mistake that they've given up their entire program.
You can disagree with the way he was treated, but I think there's a big difference between treating someone like him, who is suspected of terrorism, with someone working through normal, peaceful political channels. If this is the best example you can come up with, then you're just proving the GP's point for him.
Not to defend anything that happened there, but could you please explain how a foreign citizen passing through an airport is considered a domestic political opponent? Last time I looked, Cindy Sheehan wasn't sent anywhere for torture, and now she's a declared opponent of both Republicans and Democrats.
So as far as you're concerned, noticing bad news is the same as hoping for it? Or are you just trolling, and not really trying to reply to me, but to talk about how poorly you believe that the surge is succeeding?
Your claim seems unsubstantiated by the links you gave. Your grasp of geography leaves something to be desired, since neither Afganistan nor Pakistan are in Iraq. If you said that the surge hasn't completely stopped al Qaeda, then I'd agree with you. But that wasn't the purpose of the surge. The surge was focused on Baghdad, so the fact that terrorist activity seems to have increased in Mosul (resulting, presumably, from driving many of them from the Baghdad area) can actually be part of an argument showing that the surge is working. I also think that sending women in now shows increased desperation, and a reduced capability.
I don't really object to your final assertion (I *was* being an ass, though there was a point), but please elaborate on your original so-called point. What does eliminating the Dept of Education have to do with the privatization of public schools? My post was referring to the fact that teachers unions have such a stranglehold on the schools that it's very difficult to implement any sort of reform (another argument that doesn't follow from talking about eliminating the Dept of Ed).
We can debate about both points (and likely have neither one convince the other) but you were still changing the topic away from eliminating a cabinet level executive agency and towards public school reform.
No, you'd rather have it doled out by the local union boss. (Of course, this is as much of a nonsequitor response to your post as your comment about the Dept of Ed was, but at least mine is based in reality).
Second example is Ron Paul's second place finishes in Nevada and Louisiana and the complete non-reporting of it. The articles I saw were along the lines of "Mitt finishes first, McCain third." with never a mention of second.
You're right, but no one really paid any attention to these places, so I think that Romney has a much bigger complaint than Paul, since all the buzz is about McCain. Still, it's silly of Taco to not mention Ron Paul. I think the options are that either Taco doesn't read stuff on the internet much, or it was a deliberate troll.
A successful exercise must consider every possible threat. They didn't think about every possible threat. It's not possible to think of every possible threat. An exercise that doesn't consider every possible threat doesn't help anything at all
WTF?
You obviously missed the whole point, which was really to work on the cooperation and communication. They weren't testing specific countermeasures, but stressing the people and the organizations involved to see what happens. Even if it weren't, being more prepared or knowledgeable about some threats is better than being knowledgeable than no threats.
That's not a definition of pacifism that I've heard before. Nor does it appear to agree with the pacifists in this thread. Your definition fits perfectly well with developing a strong military.
If they want to be pacifists, fine. But stop pretending that it's a luxury that we can afford. You're never going to convince the Hitler's of the world to just be nice. Sometimes, you just have to shoot them. So you'd better be ready to shoot or be shot.
I'm curious where you heard this. My understanding was that the collateral damages always have to be considered by a commander. It's his job to determine if the risk of killing innocents is worth the destruction of the target. In any case, "all you need is permission" is a pretty vague statement. Permission from whom? What do you think would be a better process (sending the planes home is not a valid answer).
Some American students are famously activist, but most young people don't vote. Why do you think that so few politicians are willing to do anything about Social Security? Because the people who are most concerned about it vote at higher rates than any other demographic. And not all students believe what the very vocal minority believe--certainly not to the same extent or with the same passion. In any case, I suspect that the 'reputation for activism' wasn't as influential as the romanticized histories of the period would have you believe.
Yep, not to mention the conflict between your right to free speech and interfering in the rights of others. There's a difference between criticizing a business or organization, and physically blocking access to their customers.
You misunderstand the point of the Bill of Rights, as do most modern readers. The point was to explicitly limit the powers of the federal government. Perversely, I think that it helped to change the focus of the Constitution and our view of the government's powers from the original intent, namely that the government had no powers except those explicitly granted by the Constitution, to the current mess where if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say no, then all bets are off. And even if it does say no, just ask the 9 robed wonders for a waiver (see McCain-Feingold for a perfect example).
This was why the original supporters argued that the BoR was unnecessary. The Constitution never said that the government could regulate speech, so of course such laws would be unconstitutional. Sadly, the supporters of the BoR were probably right, and the existence of the amendments has probably slowed down the growth in the power of government.
I mostly agree with you, but I guess I see less difference between.NET and java. I guess the classpath thing is a valid point, but you have the same misuse/ignorance of the APIs.
The irony being that Europe is exactly one of the places with an aging, shrinking population (unless they let in enough Arabs and Africans, I suppose).
My point was that they're not concerned about oil running out. In fact, they'd probably be happy if it did. Many people are definitely concerned about global warming, or other geopolitical issues, and there are some who definitely want to change the nature of western economies and governments. And that's not to say which issues are more important to individuals.
No one cares about having enough oil except as it's useful for making things or for energy. If the GGP had mentioned some rare type of flower, or a bird or something, then I'd believe him.
What if the trees do offset his carbon usage? What if they more than offset his carbon usage?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these offsets do what they claim. If he really believes in the apocalypse that he preaches about, instead of offsetting his heated pool, he could be offsetting the output of actions by other people, many of whom can't afford the luxury of buying offsets.
Do as I say, not as I do is not a way to convince others of your sincerity. And if he doesn't believe that it matters, then why should we?
But that's a problem that takes care of itself--especially in absence of government interference/regulation in markets. Do you really think that's why certain groups advocate getting away from fossil fuels?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, people like me. You mean the people actually interested in the rule of law? Or the people who can tell the difference between two different arguments? I basically agree that Padilla's treatment probably shouldn't be legal. But guess what? It apparently is. You're not clear about which rights were violated, but at least according to the Wikipedia article, it seems clear that the system had found that his detention was legal.
I guess the fundamental point is that no /. thread can stay on any particular topic.
I'm not missing the point. I'm pointing out the fact that you and the previous poster are talking apples and oranges. As the poster said, get back to us when you can talk about an actual domestic political opponent extradited for torture. Some less than plush treatment and some overzealous police work around some street protests are not the same thing as rounding up Howard Dean and sending him to Syria.
We can also compare how the two countries might deal with people like Padilla, but if you think it's so cut and dried, you might go look up what happened during WW2 to some German saboteurs caught in the US. I agree that rule of law should apply to everyone (regardless of your misinterpretations), but I think you have a distorted view of what the law actually is, and how it gets interpreted and executed.
Let's examine your claim of non-rule of law. Your link says that originally, an appeals court decided among contradictory precedents (Ex parte Quirin vs. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer) that he had a right to habeus corpus. But the Supreme Court rejected the petition due to technical problems with it (if that's not rule of law, what is), so the case was never really decided. After the petition was refiled, his detainment was ruled to be legal. It goes on to state that the "Military Commission Act of 2006 does not apply by its terms to José Padilla," but by the time it was a law, he'd already been indicted and transferred to the civilian justice system.
In any case, you've once again proved how different we are from Iran, which was the real point.
Of course, what the intelligence report actually said was that they'd likely stopped their weaponization efforts, which are way off the critical path at this point. They continue to work on uranium enrichment and their missile programs, which are the long poles in the tent. I suppose it's still a good thing if they've stopped working on weaponization, but I wouldn't want to make the mistake that they've given up their entire program.
You can disagree with the way he was treated, but I think there's a big difference between treating someone like him, who is suspected of terrorism, with someone working through normal, peaceful political channels. If this is the best example you can come up with, then you're just proving the GP's point for him.
Not to defend anything that happened there, but could you please explain how a foreign citizen passing through an airport is considered a domestic political opponent? Last time I looked, Cindy Sheehan wasn't sent anywhere for torture, and now she's a declared opponent of both Republicans and Democrats.
So as far as you're concerned, noticing bad news is the same as hoping for it? Or are you just trolling, and not really trying to reply to me, but to talk about how poorly you believe that the surge is succeeding?
Your claim seems unsubstantiated by the links you gave. Your grasp of geography leaves something to be desired, since neither Afganistan nor Pakistan are in Iraq. If you said that the surge hasn't completely stopped al Qaeda, then I'd agree with you. But that wasn't the purpose of the surge. The surge was focused on Baghdad, so the fact that terrorist activity seems to have increased in Mosul (resulting, presumably, from driving many of them from the Baghdad area) can actually be part of an argument showing that the surge is working. I also think that sending women in now shows increased desperation, and a reduced capability.
I don't really object to your final assertion (I *was* being an ass, though there was a point), but please elaborate on your original so-called point. What does eliminating the Dept of Education have to do with the privatization of public schools? My post was referring to the fact that teachers unions have such a stranglehold on the schools that it's very difficult to implement any sort of reform (another argument that doesn't follow from talking about eliminating the Dept of Ed).
We can debate about both points (and likely have neither one convince the other) but you were still changing the topic away from eliminating a cabinet level executive agency and towards public school reform.
No, you'd rather have it doled out by the local union boss. (Of course, this is as much of a nonsequitor response to your post as your comment about the Dept of Ed was, but at least mine is based in reality).
Well, duh. It runs on *BSD, of course.
So, to summarize your post:
WTF?
You obviously missed the whole point, which was really to work on the cooperation and communication. They weren't testing specific countermeasures, but stressing the people and the organizations involved to see what happens. Even if it weren't, being more prepared or knowledgeable about some threats is better than being knowledgeable than no threats.
That's not a definition of pacifism that I've heard before. Nor does it appear to agree with the pacifists in this thread. Your definition fits perfectly well with developing a strong military.
If they want to be pacifists, fine. But stop pretending that it's a luxury that we can afford. You're never going to convince the Hitler's of the world to just be nice. Sometimes, you just have to shoot them. So you'd better be ready to shoot or be shot.
Welcome to the real world.
I'm curious where you heard this. My understanding was that the collateral damages always have to be considered by a commander. It's his job to determine if the risk of killing innocents is worth the destruction of the target. In any case, "all you need is permission" is a pretty vague statement. Permission from whom? What do you think would be a better process (sending the planes home is not a valid answer).
Yeah, we should get rid of surveillance cameras in banks and jewelry stores, too.
Some American students are famously activist, but most young people don't vote. Why do you think that so few politicians are willing to do anything about Social Security? Because the people who are most concerned about it vote at higher rates than any other demographic. And not all students believe what the very vocal minority believe--certainly not to the same extent or with the same passion. In any case, I suspect that the 'reputation for activism' wasn't as influential as the romanticized histories of the period would have you believe.
Yep, not to mention the conflict between your right to free speech and interfering in the rights of others. There's a difference between criticizing a business or organization, and physically blocking access to their customers.
You misunderstand the point of the Bill of Rights, as do most modern readers. The point was to explicitly limit the powers of the federal government. Perversely, I think that it helped to change the focus of the Constitution and our view of the government's powers from the original intent, namely that the government had no powers except those explicitly granted by the Constitution, to the current mess where if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say no, then all bets are off. And even if it does say no, just ask the 9 robed wonders for a waiver (see McCain-Feingold for a perfect example).
This was why the original supporters argued that the BoR was unnecessary. The Constitution never said that the government could regulate speech, so of course such laws would be unconstitutional. Sadly, the supporters of the BoR were probably right, and the existence of the amendments has probably slowed down the growth in the power of government.
Let me enlighten you: http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/7593/141396.aspx
I mostly agree with you, but I guess I see less difference between .NET and java. I guess the classpath thing is a valid point, but you have the same misuse/ignorance of the APIs.
The irony being that Europe is exactly one of the places with an aging, shrinking population (unless they let in enough Arabs and Africans, I suppose).
My point was that they're not concerned about oil running out. In fact, they'd probably be happy if it did. Many people are definitely concerned about global warming, or other geopolitical issues, and there are some who definitely want to change the nature of western economies and governments. And that's not to say which issues are more important to individuals.
No one cares about having enough oil except as it's useful for making things or for energy. If the GGP had mentioned some rare type of flower, or a bird or something, then I'd believe him.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these offsets do what they claim. If he really believes in the apocalypse that he preaches about, instead of offsetting his heated pool, he could be offsetting the output of actions by other people, many of whom can't afford the luxury of buying offsets.
Do as I say, not as I do is not a way to convince others of your sincerity. And if he doesn't believe that it matters, then why should we?
But that's a problem that takes care of itself--especially in absence of government interference/regulation in markets. Do you really think that's why certain groups advocate getting away from fossil fuels?