I'm aware of non-rational experiences of "the divine" and how powerful they are (had some myself, actually)
I wasn't aware that experiences could be classified as rational or non-rational. What distinguishes a rational experience from a non-rational one?
the interpretation of being enlightened/born-again/etc. is all done though the mind.
As opposed to arithmetic or anti-religious diatribes, which are done through the... liver?
If it can be induced by chemicals or a powerful magnetic field pointed at the right spot on the skull, I'd have to question it's association with omniscient superbeings.
Sure, brain manipulation changes your mental state. I don't think anyone has ever become born again because of chemical or magnetic induction though. The idea that states of mind that are conducive to religious experience can be brought on through natural means, including drugs or fasting, is not evidence that the religious experience is somehow not real. That is a prejudice of having a mindset formed by a Christian society which dissociates drugs from religion. Historically, many, if not most, religions have done the opposite.
Science states that until proof exists, a given statement should be assumed to be false. It also states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Wow. This is utterly NOT what science is. First of all, the statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a statement of prejudice if not zealotry. What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" is entirely subjective. I know that Carl Sagan coined this phrase, and I generally respect him -- but the only legitimacy in the phrase is what I believe was the underlying motivation Carl had in saying this, which was that for the extraordinary things that he wanted to believe in he should set a very high standard of evidence for himself before believing in them. I think that's an underlying honorable intention to guard against prejudice, but the statement itself is one that ironically embraces and amplifies prejudice, and is therefore anti-scientific.
As for assuming a statement false until proof, that is wrong on several levels. First, when scientists assume a statement to be false, they drop the matter, and run no experiments to learn more about the truth or falsity of the statement. So if your claim was true, science would never learn anything, because every proposed theory they would assume to be false and not test. No assumptions are made about the truth of new statements or theories until accumulated evidence gradually builds a case for or against it. Evidence can and does often prove theories false, but evidence can never prove a theory true. However scientists will often functionally assume (or "believe") that a theory is true once the preponderance of new evidence has has repeatedly confirmed the predictions of the theory. However, every good scientist will be willing to hold every theory in doubt and to be on the lookout for flaws or counter-indications.
"On Pluto, there is a race of mole-people living just beneth the surface, with hyper-advanced technology, and they are plotting our destruction, which will take place on 2012."
Can you prove that's not true? No, you can't. But I'd bet dollars to donuts, you don't believe that. Why are you such a zealot???
That is why we assume things to be false.
That has nothing to do with science. That has to do about the nature of human interaction and empathy. These allow anyone listening to you to credibly assume that you created that example as an example of a fictional thing, rather than something you observed or otherwise have evidence to believe. So there's a good and rational reason to believe that the statement is false. But that is human rationality, not science. Science doesn't assume anything about the statement.
Therefore, we cannot know if a god exists or not, but we can be damn sure in an assumption one doesn't, for one reason. Zero proof - the universe over. Zero proof, when such a claim would require more than ANY OTHER THEORY POSTULATED IN HISTORY to be taken as true.
It is not a "belief", it is not a guess; it is the reasonable, default position for any assumption: "I don't believe you, but I may reconsider if you show me enough proof that you're right." God is no special case.
Again, every theory or proposition has zero proof. All are based on assumptions and beliefs, if not prejudices. Even mathematical proofs rest on "self-evident" assumptions called axioms. The idea of proof in math or science all, therefore, rests on the idea that "self-evident reason" is the highest form of proof. Any other proof is necessarily weaker, because it depends on the axioms based on that criteria. And even in science "self-evident reason", when extraordinary men, like Einstein, have been willing to embrace it and make assumptions, such as the assumption of locality, the assumption of causality, the assumption that all the laws of physics apply equally in any fixed inertial frame, and the
It just says "any religion". But it also says you have to cause outrage among "a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". So it would at least have to be a religion that has a "substantial" (whatever that means) number of adherents. That's how I would interpret it anyway. I suppose it would be possible to interpret "substantial number" to mean a substantial percentage, in which case any size or description of religion would count. So yeah, it's pretty open-ended.
I know a lot about what Newton and Pythagoras believed. My statement wasn't even about belief. It was about the application of logic by people, including myself, who are or were well-qualified to do so.
As a side-note, I think all this outrage over the intent to outlaw the intent to outrage would be better redirected at Germany and other European countries where they actually outlaw the communication of specific ideas (in particular the idea that the holocaust didn't happen or is exaggerated). That is the real dagger in the heart of the God-given right to free speech -- the right to simply communicate what one thinks or believes. That is the real outrage. That is what Thomas Jefferson would be angry about.
The law doesn't say anything about religious organizations or what the organizations find offensive. It refers to the members of any religion, and if it intentionally outrages large numbers of people belonging to that religion.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
The Constitution requires a blasphemy law, so they call it a blasphemy law. But it is not a blasphemy law. It is a law against intentionally causing widespread religious outrage. Well, isn't intentionally causing widespread religious outrage in Ireland is tantamount to inciting violence? Seems like a reasonable restriction to me. When a behavior has no potential benefit and significant potential harm, I believe that a condition where it is reasonable to outlaw the behavior. And I don't believe there is ever potential benefit in intentionally causing widespread religious outrage. That would always be an act of malice. And it would often have a significant potential for public harm.
That said, I seriously doubt it's a necessary law. The one act that I can think of that ever would have violated it was the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Someone decided to intentionally outrage the entire Muslim community just to show that they could. Did it convince Muslims that they should chill out a bit? No. It deepened the rifts that divide us all as human beings, and it lead to over 100 deaths. I do not find it a morally justifiable act, and I have no problem with it being prohibited. The valid principle of free speech -- which I would give my life to defend -- is not the freedom to incite. It is the freedom to communicate ideas. If the same cartoons caused the same outrage but were made in an effort to critique the state of Islam, rather than an intentional effort to incite, then that would be a matter of free speech that should always be protected.
Even in America, intentionally inciting to imminent violence or other unlawful action is illegal, and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Intentionally causing widespread religious outrage is a step back from that, but I think a rather small one. There have been several times in American history where we've had tighter constraints on speech than that.
You know, considering the history of religious violence in Ireland, I probably shouldn't have put "protecting" in quotes. It is a law against intentionally inciting religious outrage. I think it's actually maybe a valuable law for that country.
You're right. Blasphemy is totally different from hate speech. But this so-called "blasphemy" law is actually a hate speech law "protecting" all religious groups.
That's not what the law says. It's a law against intentionally offending any religious group. Sorry, atheists insist they're not a religious group, so they're fair game for offense.
It doesn't matter whether the issue is abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, its always the same broken record about how they need to "defend", and they are "under attack". Yet, are never able to actually articulate how other people having choices in life constitutes an attack on them and theirs.
What are you talking about? All Christians are asking for is the same freedoms as everyone else -- the application of the 1st amendment. Where people are allowed to talk about God in schools, to pray out loud, to bring a Bible into a school, to have bible-study clubs, and all the other privileges that every other non-Christian school of thought has.
It's actually not a religion-specific statute, despite the word "blasphemy" which would tend to imply otherwise. It's basically a law against intentionally upsetting any religious group.
Your assumption about a definition of blasphemy arising from the Irish Catholic homogeneity is incorrect. If one were to RTFStatute, one would find little pertaining to the actual definition of blasphemy. It's basically a law against intentionally publishing something that outrages a large portion of the members of any religion.
For example, it would probably cover those infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons... to the extent that they would be found to be made for the purpose of upsetting Muslims.
Once one opens the door to the possibility of one supernatural being, the only logical progression is that ALL beliefs based on the supernatural must potentially be true. And that's an express train to crazytown.
First of all, by definition, there can be one Divine. That can be called God or El or Theos or Logos or Alla or Tao or anything else. These are not "multiple supernatural beings", they are multiple attempts to describe a common concept. Mythological gods, Osiris or Jupiter or Zeus or Brahman is a different concept, where complex interactions are explained through anthropomorphic metaphor. (Brahman can actually fit into either category depending on how it's being used.) The progression into the state of mind that can regard all beliefs as potentially true is not the express train to crazytown, but the express train to reason. Of all the beliefs concerning the supernatural that I've studied, the only one I am unable to find a basis of truth in is atheism.
Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it.
Agnosticism is the default position. People who have a strong distaste for religion call themselves "atheists" rather than "agnostics" to indicate their opposition to it. However, they cannot defend the premise of the actual definition of atheism, which is a position of faith. So they therefore try to redefine the term to essentially turn it to mean agnosticism. It is not the behavior of a serious mind.
Atheists aren't the ones making extraordinary claims here, theists are. There is nothing irrational about finding the whole God thing absurd, especially since there isn't a shred of scientific evidence in support of any supernatural deity.
"Extraordinary" is in the eyes of the beholder. In my view (and that of Pythagoras, Plato, Newton, and other bright fellows) your failure to find evidence of God is both extraordinary and irrational, the existence of God being necessitated by the application of the laws of logic. You are by all means welcome to your belief, though!
Name a single "Bible-thumping idiot" who is in favor of limiting any kind of speech concerning God. (The motivation in TFA is a constitutional, not religious.)
I retract my statement in the parent post that there is ambiguity where a trial of a prisoner of war should take place, insofar as that prisoner of war is a lawful enemy combatant, and protected by the Geneva Convention. I was just reading through it and was shocked to find this (emphasis added):
Article 84.
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offense alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a co~rt of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defense provided for in Article 105.
The granting of Habeas to civil courts is a flat-out violation of the Geneva Convention. Did the Justice Department miss this?! Or has it not been brought up because it only applies to lawful enemy combatants?
I'm surprised Im the first to call you out on this. Under the Geneva Conventions ANYONE in enemy hands is entitled to protection as either a prisoner of war under the third convention, or as a civilian under the fourth convention, including your so-called "irregular forces."
This is flat out wrong. It has no basis either in the text, or in the intention of the conventions. The 3rd convention protects a "protected class" of enemy combatant prisoners. This does include irregular forces if they comply with the definitions set out in the convention. The 4th convention protects non-combatants. There is no protection set out, intended, or implied in the Geneva Conventions for protection combatants that do not meet the criteria set out in the 3rd convention.
So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.
But this principle hasn't changed. In the formulation of the Geneva Conventions they gave much thought to the place of partisans or militias, who might not be uniformed. If they are under the common command of the uniformed army, if they are identifiable from a distance, and if they carry their arms openly, among other things, then they are protected. People who mix in with civilian and drop a grenade in a jeep are purposely not protected by the Geneva Conventions. These principles were identical during the American revolution. American civilians shooting guns at British authorities before the Declaration of Independence would appropriately be arrested and tried as a criminal. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of an army and organization of militiamen under its command, the British (if they were behaving appropriately) treated prisoners with the courtesies due from the law of war, and not as criminals. However, a spy or a sabateur would be tried and executed, just as under the Geneva Conventions.
These are very important principles, as these are the structures that prevent wars from devolving into genocides, as such "unprotected" tactics lead to soldiers' fear of civilians, which in turn leads to the massacres of civilians. It is not hard to find examples of this phenomenon, and it is precisely the purpose of the Geneva Conventions to avoid such developments.
The Bush administration seemed to be the only ones interested in what the Geneva Conventions actually say. The distinction of lawful and unlawful enemy combatants is made in article 4, part 1 of the third Geneva Convention, which defines who qualifies for the protections described in the convention. The interpretation of this by the Bush administration was in no way novel. It is no different from the interpretation of the International Red Cross. I honestly can't understand the rationale of those who suggest that enemy combatants -- lawful or unlawful -- must be charged with a crime or else released while hostilities are ongoing. It is an absurd position that no country in recorded history has ever practiced. The whole point of the third Geneva Convention is the assumption that enemy combatants are NOT released until hostilities cease. Enemy combatants are not held because they committed a crime. They are held because they are enemy combatants in ongoing hostilities. If they committed a crime, that is a separate issue.
The question under US law of the proper jurisdiction for combatant status reviews and trials for war crimes is a much less straightforward one. The Constitution does not address the issue directly, because when it was written there were no treaties codifying the law of war, and so issues arising under it were naturally under the purview of the commander-in-chief. However now that there are treaties codifying it, it can be argued that jurisdiction for any cases arising under those treaties now fall under the power of the judiciary under article III. The Supreme Court decided (surprise, surprise) (in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) that that power belonged to the judiciary. Therefore Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, establishing the military tribunals as inferior court with original jurisdiction, as article III empowers them, given it should be treated as a case arising under a treaty. However this makes it all the more complicated, as military tribunals don't operate under all the same constitutional constraints as civil and criminal federal courts. This is an open invitation for the Supreme Court to decide to arbitrarily determine which constitutional constraints should apply to the military tribunals and which should not, which would be (clearly, to me) overstepping its power. That would put the president in the position of either acquiescing to the usurping of power by the Supreme Court, or maintaining his authority under the law and the constitution, resulting in a so-called "constitutional crisis". This is a vital ambiguity in the constitution separation of powers, and so there is only one legitimate solution, which is for the congress and the state legislatures to agree on a reasonable balance of power in the form of a constitutional amendment. The congress is frankly negligent for not pursuing this.
As for Abu-Ghraib, it was a case of criminal abuse by US soldiers, US civilian interrogators, and Iraqi informants and interpreters that the Army Criminal Investigation Command began investigating very shortly after the abuses began, and long before the information was illegally and detrimentally made public. The 12 soldiers charged were tried, convicted, and sentenced in military court. Unfortunately, there were other guilty parties who went unpunished, or inadequately punished, including civilian interrogators and Iraqi informants and interpreters. If the abuse photos had not been publicized, creating a vastly increased atmosphere of shame for the victims and panic for the participants, it is very possible that the investigation could have gathered the evidence necessary to bring justice to more of the guilty parties. However, what I find reprehensible in the aftermath, is the propaganda used by some to politicize these crimes by equating them to the policy of the Bush administration of using interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation.
You might not be aware of the wealth of data we have from antarctic ice cores. We have 800,000 years at high resolution of oxygen and hydrogen isotope concentrations, which are used to reliably reconstruct the temperature record over that time; CO2 levels; methane levels; oxygen levels; dust concentrations; precipitation rate, and other isotope concentrations which can be used to reliably reconstruct such things as insolation (solar input) levels.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't aware that experiences could be classified as rational or non-rational. What distinguishes a rational experience from a non-rational one?
As opposed to arithmetic or anti-religious diatribes, which are done through the... liver?
Sure, brain manipulation changes your mental state. I don't think anyone has ever become born again because of chemical or magnetic induction though. The idea that states of mind that are conducive to religious experience can be brought on through natural means, including drugs or fasting, is not evidence that the religious experience is somehow not real. That is a prejudice of having a mindset formed by a Christian society which dissociates drugs from religion. Historically, many, if not most, religions have done the opposite.
You baselessly assume that God would not find value in you suffering every day of your life.
Wow. This is utterly NOT what science is. First of all, the statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a statement of prejudice if not zealotry. What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" is entirely subjective. I know that Carl Sagan coined this phrase, and I generally respect him -- but the only legitimacy in the phrase is what I believe was the underlying motivation Carl had in saying this, which was that for the extraordinary things that he wanted to believe in he should set a very high standard of evidence for himself before believing in them. I think that's an underlying honorable intention to guard against prejudice, but the statement itself is one that ironically embraces and amplifies prejudice, and is therefore anti-scientific.
As for assuming a statement false until proof, that is wrong on several levels. First, when scientists assume a statement to be false, they drop the matter, and run no experiments to learn more about the truth or falsity of the statement. So if your claim was true, science would never learn anything, because every proposed theory they would assume to be false and not test. No assumptions are made about the truth of new statements or theories until accumulated evidence gradually builds a case for or against it. Evidence can and does often prove theories false, but evidence can never prove a theory true. However scientists will often functionally assume (or "believe") that a theory is true once the preponderance of new evidence has has repeatedly confirmed the predictions of the theory. However, every good scientist will be willing to hold every theory in doubt and to be on the lookout for flaws or counter-indications.
That has nothing to do with science. That has to do about the nature of human interaction and empathy. These allow anyone listening to you to credibly assume that you created that example as an example of a fictional thing, rather than something you observed or otherwise have evidence to believe. So there's a good and rational reason to believe that the statement is false. But that is human rationality, not science. Science doesn't assume anything about the statement.
Again, every theory or proposition has zero proof. All are based on assumptions and beliefs, if not prejudices. Even mathematical proofs rest on "self-evident" assumptions called axioms. The idea of proof in math or science all, therefore, rests on the idea that "self-evident reason" is the highest form of proof. Any other proof is necessarily weaker, because it depends on the axioms based on that criteria. And even in science "self-evident reason", when extraordinary men, like Einstein, have been willing to embrace it and make assumptions, such as the assumption of locality, the assumption of causality, the assumption that all the laws of physics apply equally in any fixed inertial frame, and the
It just says "any religion". But it also says you have to cause outrage among "a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". So it would at least have to be a religion that has a "substantial" (whatever that means) number of adherents. That's how I would interpret it anyway. I suppose it would be possible to interpret "substantial number" to mean a substantial percentage, in which case any size or description of religion would count. So yeah, it's pretty open-ended.
I know a lot about what Newton and Pythagoras believed. My statement wasn't even about belief. It was about the application of logic by people, including myself, who are or were well-qualified to do so.
As a side-note, I think all this outrage over the intent to outlaw the intent to outrage would be better redirected at Germany and other European countries where they actually outlaw the communication of specific ideas (in particular the idea that the holocaust didn't happen or is exaggerated). That is the real dagger in the heart of the God-given right to free speech -- the right to simply communicate what one thinks or believes. That is the real outrage. That is what Thomas Jefferson would be angry about.
The law doesn't say anything about religious organizations or what the organizations find offensive. It refers to the members of any religion, and if it intentionally outrages large numbers of people belonging to that religion.
The Constitution requires a blasphemy law, so they call it a blasphemy law. But it is not a blasphemy law. It is a law against intentionally causing widespread religious outrage. Well, isn't intentionally causing widespread religious outrage in Ireland is tantamount to inciting violence? Seems like a reasonable restriction to me. When a behavior has no potential benefit and significant potential harm, I believe that a condition where it is reasonable to outlaw the behavior. And I don't believe there is ever potential benefit in intentionally causing widespread religious outrage. That would always be an act of malice. And it would often have a significant potential for public harm.
That said, I seriously doubt it's a necessary law. The one act that I can think of that ever would have violated it was the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Someone decided to intentionally outrage the entire Muslim community just to show that they could. Did it convince Muslims that they should chill out a bit? No. It deepened the rifts that divide us all as human beings, and it lead to over 100 deaths. I do not find it a morally justifiable act, and I have no problem with it being prohibited. The valid principle of free speech -- which I would give my life to defend -- is not the freedom to incite. It is the freedom to communicate ideas. If the same cartoons caused the same outrage but were made in an effort to critique the state of Islam, rather than an intentional effort to incite, then that would be a matter of free speech that should always be protected.
Even in America, intentionally inciting to imminent violence or other unlawful action is illegal, and not protected by the 1st Amendment. Intentionally causing widespread religious outrage is a step back from that, but I think a rather small one. There have been several times in American history where we've had tighter constraints on speech than that.
You know, considering the history of religious violence in Ireland, I probably shouldn't have put "protecting" in quotes. It is a law against intentionally inciting religious outrage. I think it's actually maybe a valuable law for that country.
You're right. Blasphemy is totally different from hate speech. But this so-called "blasphemy" law is actually a hate speech law "protecting" all religious groups.
That's not what the law says. It's a law against intentionally offending any religious group. Sorry, atheists insist they're not a religious group, so they're fair game for offense.
What are you talking about? All Christians are asking for is the same freedoms as everyone else -- the application of the 1st amendment. Where people are allowed to talk about God in schools, to pray out loud, to bring a Bible into a school, to have bible-study clubs, and all the other privileges that every other non-Christian school of thought has.
It's actually not a religion-specific statute, despite the word "blasphemy" which would tend to imply otherwise. It's basically a law against intentionally upsetting any religious group.
Your assumption about a definition of blasphemy arising from the Irish Catholic homogeneity is incorrect. If one were to RTFStatute, one would find little pertaining to the actual definition of blasphemy. It's basically a law against intentionally publishing something that outrages a large portion of the members of any religion.
For example, it would probably cover those infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons... to the extent that they would be found to be made for the purpose of upsetting Muslims.
First of all, by definition, there can be one Divine. That can be called God or El or Theos or Logos or Alla or Tao or anything else. These are not "multiple supernatural beings", they are multiple attempts to describe a common concept. Mythological gods, Osiris or Jupiter or Zeus or Brahman is a different concept, where complex interactions are explained through anthropomorphic metaphor. (Brahman can actually fit into either category depending on how it's being used.) The progression into the state of mind that can regard all beliefs as potentially true is not the express train to crazytown, but the express train to reason. Of all the beliefs concerning the supernatural that I've studied, the only one I am unable to find a basis of truth in is atheism.
Agnosticism is the default position. People who have a strong distaste for religion call themselves "atheists" rather than "agnostics" to indicate their opposition to it. However, they cannot defend the premise of the actual definition of atheism, which is a position of faith. So they therefore try to redefine the term to essentially turn it to mean agnosticism. It is not the behavior of a serious mind.
Unless you're in a school or university or workplace.
Sorry, that's not how etymology works.
It's not a-(the-ism) -- lacking the doctrine of God.
It's (a-the)-ism -- the doctrine of no God.
Just like it's not a-(gnostic-ism) -- lacking the doctrine of knowledge.
It's (a-gnostic)-ism -- the doctrine of no knowledge.
Just like it's not a-(narch-ism) -- lacking the doctrine of a ruler.
It's (a-narch)-ism -- the doctrine of no ruler.
Just like it's not a-(cosm-ism) -- lacking a doctrine of the universe.
It's (a-cosm)-ism -- the doctrine of no universe.
Just like it's not anthropo-(morph-ism) -- the human doctrine of form.
It's (anthropo-morph)-ism -- the doctrine of human form.
"Extraordinary" is in the eyes of the beholder. In my view (and that of Pythagoras, Plato, Newton, and other bright fellows) your failure to find evidence of God is both extraordinary and irrational, the existence of God being necessitated by the application of the laws of logic. You are by all means welcome to your belief, though!
Name a single "Bible-thumping idiot" who is in favor of limiting any kind of speech concerning God. (The motivation in TFA is a constitutional, not religious.)
I retract my statement in the parent post that there is ambiguity where a trial of a prisoner of war should take place, insofar as that prisoner of war is a lawful enemy combatant, and protected by the Geneva Convention. I was just reading through it and was shocked to find this (emphasis added):
The granting of Habeas to civil courts is a flat-out violation of the Geneva Convention. Did the Justice Department miss this?! Or has it not been brought up because it only applies to lawful enemy combatants?
This is flat out wrong. It has no basis either in the text, or in the intention of the conventions. The 3rd convention protects a "protected class" of enemy combatant prisoners. This does include irregular forces if they comply with the definitions set out in the convention. The 4th convention protects non-combatants. There is no protection set out, intended, or implied in the Geneva Conventions for protection combatants that do not meet the criteria set out in the 3rd convention.
So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.
But this principle hasn't changed. In the formulation of the Geneva Conventions they gave much thought to the place of partisans or militias, who might not be uniformed. If they are under the common command of the uniformed army, if they are identifiable from a distance, and if they carry their arms openly, among other things, then they are protected. People who mix in with civilian and drop a grenade in a jeep are purposely not protected by the Geneva Conventions. These principles were identical during the American revolution. American civilians shooting guns at British authorities before the Declaration of Independence would appropriately be arrested and tried as a criminal. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of an army and organization of militiamen under its command, the British (if they were behaving appropriately) treated prisoners with the courtesies due from the law of war, and not as criminals. However, a spy or a sabateur would be tried and executed, just as under the Geneva Conventions.
These are very important principles, as these are the structures that prevent wars from devolving into genocides, as such "unprotected" tactics lead to soldiers' fear of civilians, which in turn leads to the massacres of civilians. It is not hard to find examples of this phenomenon, and it is precisely the purpose of the Geneva Conventions to avoid such developments.
The Bush administration seemed to be the only ones interested in what the Geneva Conventions actually say. The distinction of lawful and unlawful enemy combatants is made in article 4, part 1 of the third Geneva Convention, which defines who qualifies for the protections described in the convention. The interpretation of this by the Bush administration was in no way novel. It is no different from the interpretation of the International Red Cross. I honestly can't understand the rationale of those who suggest that enemy combatants -- lawful or unlawful -- must be charged with a crime or else released while hostilities are ongoing. It is an absurd position that no country in recorded history has ever practiced. The whole point of the third Geneva Convention is the assumption that enemy combatants are NOT released until hostilities cease. Enemy combatants are not held because they committed a crime. They are held because they are enemy combatants in ongoing hostilities. If they committed a crime, that is a separate issue.
The question under US law of the proper jurisdiction for combatant status reviews and trials for war crimes is a much less straightforward one. The Constitution does not address the issue directly, because when it was written there were no treaties codifying the law of war, and so issues arising under it were naturally under the purview of the commander-in-chief. However now that there are treaties codifying it, it can be argued that jurisdiction for any cases arising under those treaties now fall under the power of the judiciary under article III. The Supreme Court decided (surprise, surprise) (in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) that that power belonged to the judiciary. Therefore Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, establishing the military tribunals as inferior court with original jurisdiction, as article III empowers them, given it should be treated as a case arising under a treaty. However this makes it all the more complicated, as military tribunals don't operate under all the same constitutional constraints as civil and criminal federal courts. This is an open invitation for the Supreme Court to decide to arbitrarily determine which constitutional constraints should apply to the military tribunals and which should not, which would be (clearly, to me) overstepping its power. That would put the president in the position of either acquiescing to the usurping of power by the Supreme Court, or maintaining his authority under the law and the constitution, resulting in a so-called "constitutional crisis". This is a vital ambiguity in the constitution separation of powers, and so there is only one legitimate solution, which is for the congress and the state legislatures to agree on a reasonable balance of power in the form of a constitutional amendment. The congress is frankly negligent for not pursuing this.
As for Abu-Ghraib, it was a case of criminal abuse by US soldiers, US civilian interrogators, and Iraqi informants and interpreters that the Army Criminal Investigation Command began investigating very shortly after the abuses began, and long before the information was illegally and detrimentally made public. The 12 soldiers charged were tried, convicted, and sentenced in military court. Unfortunately, there were other guilty parties who went unpunished, or inadequately punished, including civilian interrogators and Iraqi informants and interpreters. If the abuse photos had not been publicized, creating a vastly increased atmosphere of shame for the victims and panic for the participants, it is very possible that the investigation could have gathered the evidence necessary to bring justice to more of the guilty parties. However, what I find reprehensible in the aftermath, is the propaganda used by some to politicize these crimes by equating them to the policy of the Bush administration of using interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation.
You might not be aware of the wealth of data we have from antarctic ice cores. We have 800,000 years at high resolution of oxygen and hydrogen isotope concentrations, which are used to reliably reconstruct the temperature record over that time; CO2 levels; methane levels; oxygen levels; dust concentrations; precipitation rate, and other isotope concentrations which can be used to reliably reconstruct such things as insolation (solar input) levels.