Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:July:07 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/7/7 [Uncategorized] UID:43584 Activity:nil
7/6     Wow, you know that anti-Islam movie?  There's an ad on
2006/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:43585 Activity:moderate
7/7 (
        John Yoo goes crazy
        \_ Considering that tribunals have been used in almost all major US
           conflicts (including many with no declaration of war), and that
           the majority blatantly ignored Quirin and Eisentrager, going
           to the absurd extreme of invoking Geneva accords never
           ratified by the Senate, I can only conclude you have no idea
           what you are talking about.
           If, in light of Article III of the Constitution, you celebrate
           the USSSC vacating laws passed by Congress that
               \_ The United States Standards Strategy Committee?  I think you
                  have an extra 'S'
                       \- snakes on the motd
           strip their jurisdiction over the tribunals, I ask why even bother
           with Congress?  Just do away with it and let the USSSC reign
           \_ hey we are supposed to treat our goddamn prisoners the
              way we would want a foreign nation to teach our goddamn
              boys if they are captured.  it's not a hard to understand
              \_ I just wish the other side would treat our prisoners the
                 way we treat theirs.  Having your picture taken naked by
                 some skank is a lot better than being mutilated beyond
                 recognition, being decapitated and your body dumped.
              \_ That will make perfect sense when the prisoners are
                 associated with a foreign nation.  The Geneva convention
                 allows for summary execution of fighters not wearing
                 \_ No, it does not mention them.  There is a difference.
                    Anyway, according to ppp'er's logic, the POTUS could just
                    use executive power to overrule the SCOTUS.  And that
                    would be a PITA, wouldn't it?  -John
                 \_ Where does it "allow" that? Tell me the exact part where
                    it does, not some nutjob who told you that it does. You
                    are, quite simply, seriously misinformed.
                    \_ They are explicitly not covered in Article 4.  If
                       there is some question as to whether they fit in
                       one of the catagories in Article 4, a tribunal is
                       required.  Therefore, If they are explicity not
                       covered, the convention does not apply.
                       Specifically, they would only conceiveably fit
                       under Aricle 4.2, except that they don't fulfill
                       requirement b or d, and often not a or c.
                       \_ right...and of course MOTD Anonymous Coward is
                          more authoritative than the Supreme Court on
                          this issue.  -tom
                          \_ I'm totally with you.  The USSC never makes an
                             error.  So you were a big supporter of their
                             decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 then, right?
                          \_ Wow, I didn't know we were no longer allowed
                             to disagree with SCOTUS decisions.  All hail
                             our philosopher king overlords!
                             \_ You're allowed to disagree.  You're also
                                allowed to sound like an idiot.  When you
                                regurgitate dittohead propaganda that
                                is directly contradicted by the decision
                                of the US Supreme Court, which has both
                                infinitely more experience than you and
                                has also studied the specific case in
                                far more depth than you have, you can do
                                both at the same time.  -tom
                                \_ Exactly.  I totally agree with you.  The
                                   USSC is infalible.  Bush v. Gore 2000
                                   was definitely a great ruling.  Glad you're
                                   on the same page.
                                \_ This post is meaningless.  You assume a
                                   lot and know nothing.
                                   \_ Pot kettle I'm rubber and you're
                                      glue...  -John
                       \_ Sorry, just because John Yoo claims that the
                          Geneva Convention says something doesn't make it
                          so. Every other signatory to the Geneva Convention
                          agrees that there are only three categories of
                          states that there are only three categories of
                          people under the GC: 1) combatants 2) POWs and
                          3) civilians. The International Red Cross
                          3) Non-combatants. The International Red Cross
                          agrees. And now the USSC agrees. Your RNC kool-aide
                          is poisoned, you just haven't realized it yet.
                          \_ I've read what it says, I just did again.
                             The fact the some people disagree does not
                             surprise me.  Please explain how people who
                             are explicitly excluded from the convention,
                             are actually covered by it.  I'm not
                             pro-torture, but using the Geneva convention
                             to back up that position is idiotic.
                             \_ Do you mean the 3rd Convention Article 4
                                or the 4th Convention? The 4th Convention
                                Article 4 states:
                                "Persons protected by the Convention are
                                those who, at a given moment and in any manner
                                whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a
                                conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party\
                                to the conflict or Occupying Power of which
                                they are not nationals."
                                I really don't see the exclusion you claim
                                exists in that phrase.
                                or the 4th Convention? Your statements
                                make no sense in regards to the 4th Convention.
                                Go back and reread the *4th*Convention* which
                                is where the USSC drew its claim of jurisdition
                                \_ Oops, you're right.  I haven't had time
                                   to get through the whole 4th, but this
                                   is interesting: "Nationals of a State
                                   which is not bound by the Convention
                                   are not protected by it." No sure how
                                   that applies to people who disavow
                                   \_ A good, but dense analysis:
                                      A bunch of the 4th Convention
                                      specifically refers to spies and
                                      saboteurs, the closest approximation
                                      to todays "terrorists."
           \_ freeper nutjob on the case!
                                      \_ Spies and saboteurs belong to a
                                         nation.  They are not uniformed is
                                         the difference between them and a
                                         soldier.  A close approximation is
                                         not the same as "equal to".
                                         \_ Well, I guess that makes it all
                                            right then for the nation that
                                            holds the torch of freedom and
                                            overall higher standards to act
                                            like a bunch of fucking baboons
                                            and thugs.  -John
                                            \_ No one said that.  And we're
                                               talking about legalities here
                                               not the right/wrong morals of
                                               the situation and you know it.
                                               \_ Legalities?  Well, the USSC
                                                  sort of mooted that point
                                                  just now.  -John
                                                  \_ which means we're not
                                                     allowed to discuss it.
           \_ Who told you that the United States has not signed the Geneva
           \_ send him email and tell him what you think.
           \_ Who told you that Dubya's military tribunals are structured the
              same way as in previous conflicts?
              same way as in previous conflicts?  Who told you that Quirin and
              Eisentrager are relevant?  Who told you that Congress can expect
              unconstitutional laws to be left standing?
              \_ Quirin was decided before the 4th Convention was signed, so
                 it is not relevant.
        \_ And yet after 15 replies no one has recognized that the Court,
           as I said in the first reply, does not, according to DTA,
           even have jurisdiction to hear this case.  That is the
           significance of this ruling, that the USSC directly ignored
           a Constitutionally enabled Congressional statute stripping
           it of jurisdiction.
           \_ Erm, which statute would that be?  Also, as congress has the
              power to create and define all courts INFERIOR to the Supreme
              Court, isn't this moot?
           \_ Who or what is DTA? Which Congressional statute do you claim
              stripped the USSC of jurisdiction? Congress passes
              unconstitutional laws with a distressing frequency, you do
              know that, right?
           \_ When you throw out a TLA for the first time you should
              define it. You are referring to the Detainee Treatment
              Act. The Constitutionality of this act is very much
              in question. In fact, I think the USSC just ruled part
              of it unconstitutional by their ruling, but I will have
              to research it some more. See Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. I think
              that the DTA is unconstitutional on its face:
              "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
               suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
               the public Safety may require it." Art. 1, Sec. 9
2006/7/7 [Uncategorized] UID:43586 Activity:nil
7/7     I will download and have a look!
        \_ <snicker>
2006/7/7-10 [Science/Space, Computer/SW/RevisionControl, Finance/Investment] UID:43587 Activity:nil
7/7     If the Space Shuttle has no fuel tank, how does it change course when
        it tries to leave orbit and return to earth?  Thx.
        \_ It has small thrusters on it.
           \_ Yep, they jet compressed O2, IIRC.  Basically they just nudge
              themselves "down" a bit, coast down, nose up to come in w/
              the heat tiles facing down, and then once in atmo and not falling
              like a rock can use aileron/elevators and rudder.
              \_ Those are the attitude adjustment nozzles.  It also has a
                 main deorbiting thruster that uses a small amount of rocket
        \_ for 'in-space' maneuvering, it has two different sets of rockets.
           The RCS thrusters for attitude adjustment and fine maneuvering,
           and the OMS engines (two 'medium sized' rockets on the back) for
           larger orbital adjustments.  -ERic
2006/7/7-10 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:43588 Activity:nil
7/7     1980s:
        Mac: ...
        PC: .....
        Atari: ...
        Apple ][: ..
        C64/128/Amiga: .
        Mac: ..
        Windows: .........
        Linux:  ..
        BSD: ....
        GEOS: .
        PC Windows: ........
        PC Linux/BSD: .....
        Mac: .
        Mac+Windows: .
        \_ I guess Mac users don't answer stupid polls, but they do a pretty
           good job of answering motd questions.
           \_ Maybe there's only one Mac user?
                \_ there are multiple signed posts by mac users in this
                   file alone.
2006/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:43589 Activity:nil
7/7     FBI disrupts New York transportation plot: (Yahoo! News)
        "Lebanese authorities, working with U.S. law enforcement agencies,
        arrested an al-Qaida operative who admitted to plotting a terror
        attack in New York City ......"
        \_ Thank goodness they're monitoring international and domestic calls.
           Oh wait, what's that?  They caught this one w/ publically available
           resources and the Sears Tower one b/c their neighbors ratted them
           out?  No, no, that can't be right.
           \_ Yes because sometimes other methods work in some cases no one
              should use some other method you don't like.  You got into Cal?
        \_ Time to stock up on Freedom Fries, plastic sheeting and duct tape!
           Time to raise the terror alert and scare the sheeple! Let me guess,
           it must be campaign season...
           \_ Why are liberals so wacky?! Don't forget the tin foil!
              \_ Can one even still buy tin foil(as opposed to aluminum foil)?
                 That could be useful.
                 \_ Of course you can't. They made sure of it.
              \_ Freedom Fries were a liberal invention? Telling America
                 to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting was a liberal
                 course of action? Stop trying to rewrite history Padawan.
                 to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting was done
                 by liberals? Stop trying to rewrite history Padawan.
                 \_ It was a liberal's attempt at satire. Liberals think
                    that everything is some sort of evil Republican plot.
                    That's giving too much credit to Republicans.
        \_ Unlike the Florida jokers this one looks a bit more credible.
2006/7/7-8 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic] UID:43590 Activity:nil
7/7     Democratic Underground proves the 9/11 planes could not have taken
        down the WTC!
        \_ What a maroon.
        \_ Yes, I agree with them entirely.  It was the Greys with the help
           of their Bigfoot warriors lead by Elvis.  Everyone knows that.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:July:07 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>