"BTW Microsoft, if hardware acceleration is so important why is the GDI not hardware accelerated in Vista and only partially accelerated in Windows 7 (about nine functions) even though it was fully accelerated in XP? Can we get some consistency here?"
How about no?...and for good reason.
GDI is supposed to use CPU, not GPU...for systems that do not have the GPU horsepower to accelerate *everything*.
WPF/Aero is GPU, not CPU...for systems with the GPU horsepower to spare.
Frankly, I'm amazed they accelerated *any* of GDI. I was under the hopeful illusion they were depreciating GDI entirely...
"'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention"
The term is actually quite well defined...by others than myself, though usually distinguishing between 'lawful' and 'unlawful'. In the posts above, I have been using the 'unlawful' definition.
Relevant links:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htmhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html
The 4th Geneva Convention, as far as I know, applied further protections to civilians, but not to military forces that are not 'lawful' enemy combatants.
Of course, it is now confused even more since the public outcry regarding treatment of Taliban prisoners and such (and technically didn't fall under any "strict" definition as the definitions stupidly specified "uniformed" military...as though there would never be any other kind...), and the USSC's subsequent caving on the issue which served only to further muddy an already vague classification.
"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation."
(emphasis mine)
Keyword: Nation. Definition: A politically organized body of people under a single government.
Take-away: Enemy Combatants, as per the definition given above, are not aligned with *any* nation and as such are not subject to or protected by the conventions.
Since no nation will claim them, what nation are we opposing?;)
"Once you've signed it you have to abide by it with respect to all prisoners of war irregardless of wether they're from a country which has also signed."
This is news to me...and likely any country that has signed it. Have you any source for this? I would love to see it. That'd be *very* interesting to me...
Depends on whether you are referring to simply "the enemy", or the legally defined entity known as "Enemy Combatants".
"the enemy" can be anyone.
"enemy combatants", in the legal sense, are not affiliated with any nationally supported militia of any country. Al-Queda, for example, is such a military organization. They hold claim to no country and no country supports them. As such, they did not sign the Geneva Conventions, do not have to abide by them, and are not subject to them.
Strictly: ECs are not part of any national military force for any country. (This is why they are not protected by the Geneva Convention...it's not because we really really hate them...they are simply not part of any country that signed the document, and thus not subject to abide by the agreements made therein).
To be at war, we must declare war...on a specific country. As Enemy Combatants, by definition, are not aligned with *any* country, we cannot declare war on them.
1.) The more oversight the better. I can't believe we're arguing about this...
2.) What do you do if seagulls crap on your window while driving 80mph around a tight curve? Seriously...has about the same answer, does it not?...and we have about the same amount of control over it.
3.) The drones are a bad idea. Never said it was a good one. About as accurate as a drunk throwing a grenade....
"So what do you do if the relevant authorities designate you an EC (btw, not that this is any relevant term, it's an invention, because it's to inconvenient to treat criminals like Osama Bin Laden as criminals)"
Not claiming any moral or ethical stand on this. It is a phrase with a legal and valid definition that defines a specific legal status. There are specific things they are, and specific things they are not. As human beings, we feel this incessant urge to define everything we encounter and to give them unique names. We're funny that way.
"If you don't see the problem with the government being allowed to target and assassinate anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight then I question either your education (specifically your knowledge of human history) or your logic and common sense."
WTFH???
Where do you get "anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight" from "Enemy Combatant"???
"Enemy Combatant" is clearly defined, and it's definition is nowhere even close to what you suggest.
"jagapen was personalizing what the powers the ACLU is suing over ultimately means."
I never once said I was against it. Ever. Seriously... where did you even get that impression???? I *want* it defined. I *want* it verified. Hell, I don't even think they should be using drones...they have the accuracy of a drunk throwing a grenade, ffs....
Someone stated Enemy Combatants were protected citizens. I stated, correctly, that this was not the case. That is all. At which point I was accused of being one? Of being against the ACLU request?
Perhaps I need to stop taking what is obvious to me for granted? Obviously I would want whoever is making the claims of anyone else being an EC to be able to verify it, to have it checked, re-checked, and checked again. Obviously such a thing should have oversight. Obviously "Enemy Combatant" shouldn't be just another way of saying, "anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight".
Obviously...such things aren't as obvious as they should be.
*sigh* But thanks for this bit...
"the amount of attention paid by the average driver is inversely proportional to the mass of his or her vehicle."
Too true. I drove a Geo Metro for several years and know of what you speak.. God forbid the SUV is pulling a trainer o *any* kind. Perhaps I do fear SUVs after all..;)
"They get passed intelligence that a target is in a particular location"
One would hope that intelligence is good.
"We wanna know where that intelligence came from for these targeted killings."
Agreed. I would also like to know what assurances there are the target hasn't moved by the time the strike is made.
Contrary to what seems to be the consensus, I am not against the ACLU's request. Nor am I for "drone" attacks. I believe they are spotty at best. Like the hand-grenade, they are not incredibly accurate as I understand it.
My comments were spawned due to someone elses statement that enemy combatants were protected citizens...nothing more. The examples given were not meant to be examples the story covered.
Not at all. I don't even have to be involved (and would rather not be, for that matter).
An enemy Combatant is merely someone involved with, or a member of, a non-recognized (by any country) military or para-military organization currently involved in active aggression against our forces, people, or property.
Further: It does *not* apply to standing military groups within the US as this is protected by our founding documents (keyword, "standing"; meaning, not in active aggression with the US). It also does *not* apply to military forces of other countries who are, as national militias, protected by the Geneva Convention. It obviously also does *not* apply to Joe SixPack (or Achmed) waving a gun at a supermarket.
Revoke was a bad choice of words on my part. Sorry about that.
EC status does not revoke citizenship, it simply supersedes it (my new word of the day thanks to this misuse of "revoke").
One's status as a citizen is not revoked, but rather, topped by one's involvement in a military action against the US as part of a military organization that is not recognized by any nation, thus giving one the status of Enemy Combatant and allowing certain limitations upon our government to be lifted in order to protect the Country, it's People, and it's Forces.
I am all for the ACLU getting this info so long as *they* don't misuse it. Oversight in a situation such as this is completely necessary so we can be assured that those *not* qualifying as enemy combatants are not targeted.
That said, I have no problem with, morally or legally, the executing of anyone who, after due diligence, is deemed an enemy combatant.
I have to wonder how many people responding to my comments even really know what qualifies as an enemy combatant... *shrug*
There is nothing wrong with making all possible and reasonable attempts to verify any and all information that could lead the death, injury, or loss of status of any individual.
That's never been a contention as far as I am concerned.
That said, being a member of a military organization currently committing acts of violence against US forces is pretty much a giveaway...don't you think?
I am not involved with, nor a member of, any military or para-military organization currently involved in combat with US or US-allied forces or people; hence...I am not an enemy combatant.
Now do tell me, Oh Great Wearer of the Tinfoil Hat: Where did I say what the ACLU is requesting is a *bad* thing?
Did I? Perhaps I missed it....I so often forget that which I have personally typed...
Oh, right...I didn't. I rather instead responded to your inane emotional rhetoric. Well, that was my mistake....
Perhaps you missed the post I initially responded to claiming ECs were protected? Perhaps *that* is what my comments have been in reference to?
Perahps...just perhaps...it had little, if anything to do with the ACLU's current requests?
Nah...that would imply you were a knee-jerking reactionary instead of the honest, informed poster doing such things as actually reading for context that we all know you to be, right?
I must have been calling the ACLU a bunch of nosey, whiney brats....somewhere....
Right?
When you start being able to follow basic comment threading...let us know. Thanks.
I understand it quite well having dealt with it directly for the majority of my professional and personal (because I actually enjoy it) life.
These self-evident rights are ascribed to every living person and are barred from abridgment by the government except by the limitations set forth in those documents and as allowed by federal law for the protection of Country and the rights of others.
This mandate of protection supersedes individual rights.
While, by example, we are allowed to bear arms and be members of standing military or para-military organizations, *we* are limited by the keyword "standing". The moment that standing military force becomes combative, the government is granted certain leniencies on *their* limitations in the name of protecting said Country and the rights of others.
An enemy combatant is anyone affiliated with a non-nationally recognized (our nation or someone else's) military or para-military force currently engaged in open violence against our country, forces, or people.
Perhaps revoked was a misnomer. Irrelevant (superseded?) might be better. EC status supersedes any other label.
Well, the guy gunning down US soldiers might be one... So might that guy selling them guns.
Here's a thought: Instead of trying to find ways the process can be gamed (which is obvious to anyone with a brain), try finding instances in which it *has* been gamed.
FYI: going overseas does not get you labeled an EC....even if you become a citizen of another country. ECs are, by definition, not recognized by *any* country. You don't lose your citizenship by living in Israel unless you utterly fail to come back to the states once every 3 years or simply choose to let it go.
Also, an EC would know it. They don't label the guy who went to Israel to give aid an EC....they label the guy with the gun, mowing down the guys giving aid an EC. (Anyone finding evidence to the contrary is more than welcome to provide it. Such abuse of this power should be dealt with swiftly.)
It's funny. One would think that when presented with such abuse of power, the person abusing those powers would be stripped of said powers.
Oh, wait...no such abuse has yet presented.
My bad...
Don't fret. I have no fear of Airplanes or Helicopters. Not even Black SUVs. You see, unlike others, I tend *not* to let emotional rhetoric affect my ability to utilize logic and common sense.:)
Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.
This has gone on long enough. How many bills and amendments get proposed that accomplish nothing but drain our resources?
This guy did *ZERO* research. Admitted it himself....and this is "for the people"??
No. He sought his own personal agenda ahead of that of Country and Constitution, against the oath he took for office...without so much as a single thought for Country or Constitution.
Make. Him. Gone.
Then make a habit of doing the same to all of the others that constantly pull this BS. The next twit to push a bill for some "Save the Children" game-ratings? Gone.
Slashdot Mirror
"BTW Microsoft, if hardware acceleration is so important why is the GDI not hardware accelerated in Vista and only partially accelerated in Windows 7 (about nine functions) even though it was fully accelerated in XP? Can we get some consistency here?" How about no? ...and for good reason.
GDI is supposed to use CPU, not GPU...for systems that do not have the GPU horsepower to accelerate *everything*.
WPF/Aero is GPU, not CPU...for systems with the GPU horsepower to spare.
Frankly, I'm amazed they accelerated *any* of GDI. I was under the hopeful illusion they were depreciating GDI entirely...
"'Enemy Combatant' is not a term which appears in the convention" The term is actually quite well defined...by others than myself, though usually distinguishing between 'lawful' and 'unlawful'. In the posts above, I have been using the 'unlawful' definition. Relevant links: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htm http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html The 4th Geneva Convention, as far as I know, applied further protections to civilians, but not to military forces that are not 'lawful' enemy combatants. Of course, it is now confused even more since the public outcry regarding treatment of Taliban prisoners and such (and technically didn't fall under any "strict" definition as the definitions stupidly specified "uniformed" military...as though there would never be any other kind...), and the USSC's subsequent caving on the issue which served only to further muddy an already vague classification.
Thank you.
...and I quote (from your link):
"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental human rights. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these rights regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation."
(emphasis mine)
Keyword: Nation.
Definition: A politically organized body of people under a single government.
Take-away: Enemy Combatants, as per the definition given above, are not aligned with *any* nation and as such are not subject to or protected by the conventions.
Since no nation will claim them, what nation are we opposing? ;)
"Once you've signed it you have to abide by it with respect to all prisoners of war irregardless of wether they're from a country which has also signed."
This is news to me...and likely any country that has signed it. Have you any source for this? I would love to see it. That'd be *very* interesting to me...
Depends on whether you are referring to simply "the enemy", or the legally defined entity known as "Enemy Combatants".
"the enemy" can be anyone.
"enemy combatants", in the legal sense, are not affiliated with any nationally supported militia of any country. Al-Queda, for example, is such a military organization. They hold claim to no country and no country supports them. As such, they did not sign the Geneva Conventions, do not have to abide by them, and are not subject to them.
God...
You do not know what an enemy combatant is.
Hint: It's not just an enemy we are combating.
Strictly: ECs are not part of any national military force for any country. (This is why they are not protected by the Geneva Convention...it's not because we really really hate them...they are simply not part of any country that signed the document, and thus not subject to abide by the agreements made therein).
To be at war, we must declare war...on a specific country. As Enemy Combatants, by definition, are not aligned with *any* country, we cannot declare war on them.
1.) The more oversight the better. I can't believe we're arguing about this...
2.) What do you do if seagulls crap on your window while driving 80mph around a tight curve? Seriously...has about the same answer, does it not? ...and we have about the same amount of control over it.
3.) The drones are a bad idea. Never said it was a good one. About as accurate as a drunk throwing a grenade....
"So what do you do if the relevant authorities designate you an EC (btw, not that this is any relevant term, it's an invention, because it's to inconvenient to treat criminals like Osama Bin Laden as criminals)"
Not claiming any moral or ethical stand on this. It is a phrase with a legal and valid definition that defines a specific legal status. There are specific things they are, and specific things they are not. As human beings, we feel this incessant urge to define everything we encounter and to give them unique names. We're funny that way.
SUV pulling a trailer of any kind! Spell check failed me...
"If you don't see the problem with the government being allowed to target and assassinate anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight then I question either your education (specifically your knowledge of human history) or your logic and common sense."
WTFH???
Where do you get "anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight" from "Enemy Combatant"???
"Enemy Combatant" is clearly defined, and it's definition is nowhere even close to what you suggest.
"jagapen was personalizing what the powers the ACLU is suing over ultimately means."
I never once said I was against it. Ever. Seriously... where did you even get that impression???? I *want* it defined. I *want* it verified. Hell, I don't even think they should be using drones...they have the accuracy of a drunk throwing a grenade, ffs....
Someone stated Enemy Combatants were protected citizens. I stated, correctly, that this was not the case. That is all. At which point I was accused of being one? Of being against the ACLU request?
Perhaps I need to stop taking what is obvious to me for granted? Obviously I would want whoever is making the claims of anyone else being an EC to be able to verify it, to have it checked, re-checked, and checked again. Obviously such a thing should have oversight. Obviously "Enemy Combatant" shouldn't be just another way of saying, "anyone at any time, anywhere, with no oversight".
Obviously...such things aren't as obvious as they should be.
*sigh* But thanks for this bit...
"the amount of attention paid by the average driver is inversely proportional to the mass of his or her vehicle."
Too true. I drove a Geo Metro for several years and know of what you speak.. God forbid the SUV is pulling a trainer o *any* kind. Perhaps I do fear SUVs after all.. ;)
"They get passed intelligence that a target is in a particular location"
One would hope that intelligence is good.
"We wanna know where that intelligence came from for these targeted killings."
Agreed. I would also like to know what assurances there are the target hasn't moved by the time the strike is made.
Contrary to what seems to be the consensus, I am not against the ACLU's request. Nor am I for "drone" attacks. I believe they are spotty at best. Like the hand-grenade, they are not incredibly accurate as I understand it.
My comments were spawned due to someone elses statement that enemy combatants were protected citizens...nothing more. The examples given were not meant to be examples the story covered.
...
Still waiting for you to make a point...
Was there one? We apparently agree on the ACLU making the request, so what is it you have an issue with?
Not at all. I don't even have to be involved (and would rather not be, for that matter).
An enemy Combatant is merely someone involved with, or a member of, a non-recognized (by any country) military or para-military organization currently involved in active aggression against our forces, people, or property.
Further: It does *not* apply to standing military groups within the US as this is protected by our founding documents (keyword, "standing"; meaning, not in active aggression with the US). It also does *not* apply to military forces of other countries who are, as national militias, protected by the Geneva Convention. It obviously also does *not* apply to Joe SixPack (or Achmed) waving a gun at a supermarket.
Revoke was a bad choice of words on my part. Sorry about that.
EC status does not revoke citizenship, it simply supersedes it (my new word of the day thanks to this misuse of "revoke").
One's status as a citizen is not revoked, but rather, topped by one's involvement in a military action against the US as part of a military organization that is not recognized by any nation, thus giving one the status of Enemy Combatant and allowing certain limitations upon our government to be lifted in order to protect the Country, it's People, and it's Forces.
I am all for the ACLU getting this info so long as *they* don't misuse it. Oversight in a situation such as this is completely necessary so we can be assured that those *not* qualifying as enemy combatants are not targeted.
That said, I have no problem with, morally or legally, the executing of anyone who, after due diligence, is deemed an enemy combatant.
I have to wonder how many people responding to my comments even really know what qualifies as an enemy combatant... *shrug*
Ah well, discussion is discussion... :)
I agree wholeheartedly.
There is nothing wrong with making all possible and reasonable attempts to verify any and all information that could lead the death, injury, or loss of status of any individual.
That's never been a contention as far as I am concerned.
That said, being a member of a military organization currently committing acts of violence against US forces is pretty much a giveaway...don't you think?
Wrong.
I am not involved with, nor a member of, any military or para-military organization currently involved in combat with US or US-allied forces or people; hence...I am not an enemy combatant.
Nice try though.
*laughing*
Now do tell me, Oh Great Wearer of the Tinfoil Hat: Where did I say what the ACLU is requesting is a *bad* thing?
Did I? Perhaps I missed it....I so often forget that which I have personally typed...
Oh, right...I didn't. I rather instead responded to your inane emotional rhetoric. Well, that was my mistake....
Perhaps you missed the post I initially responded to claiming ECs were protected? Perhaps *that* is what my comments have been in reference to?
Perahps...just perhaps...it had little, if anything to do with the ACLU's current requests?
Nah...that would imply you were a knee-jerking reactionary instead of the honest, informed poster doing such things as actually reading for context that we all know you to be, right?
I must have been calling the ACLU a bunch of nosey, whiney brats....somewhere....
Right?
When you start being able to follow basic comment threading...let us know. Thanks.
Heh...
"We should just send settlers over there and colonize. enough with this hypocrisy."
Interestingly enough, that has, almost exactly, been my thought as well. What better way to change a country than from within?
The idea of open-borders as a method to bring about a sense of equality among "nations" has been around since man first started forming communities.
I understand it quite well having dealt with it directly for the majority of my professional and personal (because I actually enjoy it) life.
These self-evident rights are ascribed to every living person and are barred from abridgment by the government except by the limitations set forth in those documents and as allowed by federal law for the protection of Country and the rights of others.
This mandate of protection supersedes individual rights.
While, by example, we are allowed to bear arms and be members of standing military or para-military organizations, *we* are limited by the keyword "standing". The moment that standing military force becomes combative, the government is granted certain leniencies on *their* limitations in the name of protecting said Country and the rights of others.
Easter Candies?
Entertaining Comedians?
Or could it perhaps refer to Enemy Combatants? Ya know...in context with the posts above?
Nah...that'd be silly.
An enemy combatant is anyone affiliated with a non-nationally recognized (our nation or someone else's) military or para-military force currently engaged in open violence against our country, forces, or people.
Perhaps revoked was a misnomer. Irrelevant (superseded?) might be better. EC status supersedes any other label.
"How do you tell if they are an EC?"
Well, the guy gunning down US soldiers might be one... So might that guy selling them guns.
Here's a thought: Instead of trying to find ways the process can be gamed (which is obvious to anyone with a brain), try finding instances in which it *has* been gamed.
FYI: going overseas does not get you labeled an EC....even if you become a citizen of another country. ECs are, by definition, not recognized by *any* country. You don't lose your citizenship by living in Israel unless you utterly fail to come back to the states once every 3 years or simply choose to let it go.
Also, an EC would know it. They don't label the guy who went to Israel to give aid an EC....they label the guy with the gun, mowing down the guys giving aid an EC. (Anyone finding evidence to the contrary is more than welcome to provide it. Such abuse of this power should be dealt with swiftly.)
It's funny. One would think that when presented with such abuse of power, the person abusing those powers would be stripped of said powers.
Oh, wait...no such abuse has yet presented.
My bad...
Don't fret. I have no fear of Airplanes or Helicopters. Not even Black SUVs. You see, unlike others, I tend *not* to let emotional rhetoric affect my ability to utilize logic and common sense. :)
Damn them for being enemy combatants?
Sorry, the moment they become EC's, they lose *all* affiliation with the US, including citizenship, and any protections afforded them by such things as the Geneva Convention...unless they become affiliated with another recognized nation.
Eligible?
Hell, if they are classified as enemy combatants, they should sure as hell no longer *be* citizens.
Revoke their citizenship and suddenly, this angle....goes away.
Remove him from office.
Ban him from government for life.
Bring him up on charges just shy of treason.
No. I am not joking.
This has gone on long enough. How many bills and amendments get proposed that accomplish nothing but drain our resources?
This guy did *ZERO* research. Admitted it himself. ...and this is "for the people"??
No. He sought his own personal agenda ahead of that of Country and Constitution, against the oath he took for office...without so much as a single thought for Country or Constitution.
Make. Him. Gone.
Then make a habit of doing the same to all of the others that constantly pull this BS. The next twit to push a bill for some "Save the Children" game-ratings? Gone.