"I play the real rules"
No, you play a set of house rules that you've made up.
6066 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"I play the real rules"
No, you play a set of house rules that you've made up.
Paging James D Nicholl: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary."
English constantly grows, adapts and changes. If you want a language that doesn't, try French which has laws to protect it (not that many people pay attention to them)
"To make it more marketable, Scrabble recently allowed proper nouns and I believe also stage names."
That was only a variant of Scrabble, not the official version of the game which uses the SOWPODS Scrabble Tournament word list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOWPODS
Even when I quote *YOUR* own words, you keep trying to evade the issue.
Feel free to really get the last word this time because I really can't be bothered to waste any more time on you.
Oh dear, Matt, you are *SO* desperate not to admit you are wrong! I wasn't going to post again, but you've made another claim which I cannot leave to stand without challenge.
Yes I have "admitted" (good word!) that the prosecutors say they "won't seek the death penalty", but again you try to shift the goalposts with an irrelevancy because again I remind you that *YOU* said (I quote once more) "Manning has not been charged with any section of military law that includes a death sentence" and I have shown that UCMJ 104 *does* include a death sentence.
Now, based on what you have said, I have looked and searched and I cannot find anything which confirms your claim that "You have to specifically charged as violating Section 2 of Article 104 to face the death penalty", so please can you post a link that verifies this, because I cannot see how you manage to twist that meaning out of:
* * * * *
104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
* * * * *
Section 2 of that is not some sort of stand-alone charge, nor does only Section 1 or Section 2 independently specify the potential death penalty, the two sections linked by "or" are clearly intended to be read together and *either* can result in the death penalty, ie "Manning *HAS* been charged with any section of military law that includes a death sentence".
So can you answer this without moving the goalposts again?
"Nice try, but it was never an automatic death penalty"
Nice try, but completely irrelevant. You said (again I quote your exact words): "Manning has not been charged with any section of military law that includes a death sentence" and you then went on to say: "If you can prove otherwise, please supply a link or other evidence of a charge or warrant issues against Manning that does include the death sentence."
Well, Matt Bryant, I have done exactly that. I have supplied you with a link and other evidence of the precise charge against Manning and cited the exact law which states that such a charge can be punished by a death sentence", but, even having been presented with the proof that you demanded, instead of admitting that you were wrong (heaven forfend!) you immediately start trying to dodge the issue and move the goalposts.
Again I see that it is pointless trying to hold a reasonable argument with you, so feel free once again to have the last word (which will probably include some childish insults) if it makes you feel better. But it won't make you right.
Quoting Matt Bryant: "Manning HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED with any section of military law that includes a death sentence"
Oh really? Perhaps you had better do a little more research...
* * * * *
I. PERSONAL DATA
1. NAME OF ACCUSED (Last, First, MI) MANNING, Bradley E. PFC E
10. ADDITIONAL CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 104.
THE SPECIFICATION: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army,
did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about
1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, without proper authority,
knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means.
* * * * *
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
1. US Military
“Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; SHALL SUFFER DEATH or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”
[All emphasis mine]
* * * * *
So the crime of "Aiding the Enemy" which Bradley Manning *HAS* been charged with under US Military Law carries a maximum penalty of *DEATH*.
Just because the Prosecutors have said that they "won't seek the death penalty" does not change the fact that he has "been charged with a section of military law that includes a death sentence", despite what Matt Bryant might wish to believe.
PS Why does being called "uninformed" by Matt Bryant (the man competing with Ian Michael Gumby for the award of the most down-voted troll ever) feel like being called "clueless" by Inspector Clouseau?
"...Manning would have been shot after a quick and speedy trial for what he's accused of doing."
Ah, yes, the old "Give him a fair trial and then hang him" method of "Justice"...
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
Now unless the gardener a) knew that the neighbours were watching (with a telephoto lens from 150m away!) and was deliberately waving his willy at them, I don't really think that there's a case to answer.
The US authorities have gone *way* over the line in this case and there's no way I can see that any court would justify their actions.
... some strange definition of the word "snoop" that I wasn't aware of, since "snoop" normally implies it's being done in a clandestine way that the user is not aware of, rather than "Download and install this app and get advice from it".
"Good idea, let's hold a consultation on how to do it..."
Yes, I know the Police can nick you for Dangerous Driving, hence my example pointing out that whilst doing 70mph on a rainy, windy, unlit dual carriageway etc might be legal in terms of the speed limit, but could definitely be classed as "inappropriate speed for the conditions" viz:
* * * * *
What is 'Dangerous driving'?
A person drives dangerously when:
* the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
* it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
* * * * *
But that doesn't mean that pointing out the difference between "breaking the speed limit" and "using inappropriate speed for the conditions" is a poor argument.
"What you're advocating there is speed limits that can and do change at arbitrary times of the day (i.e. when the conditions change). "
You mean like the "Active Traffic Management" that happens on the M25 and other motorways where speed limits can and do change at arbitrary times of the day (i.e. when the conditions change)!
"It's *your* responsibility as a motorist to drive safely within that limit. If you want to ignore it you are free to do so. There are of course consequences. As an adult you should accept that and act accordingly. Having it both ways is for the kids."
As an adult and, more relevantly, as a member of the IAM, I am well aware of my responsibilities on the road and the requirement to use the road safely and one of the simplest ways to fail an IAM test is to act in a way that causes another road user to have to change their driving or riding plan.
However blithely (or blindly) sticking to limits whilst ignoring other factors is not the mark of an Advanced Road User either. If you're in a 60 limit, following a car doing 52mph and you want to make progress by passing them, you pick a clear piece of road and complete your overtake in a safe and timely manner, but whilst you're doing this you do *not* want to be looking down at your speedo to ensure you don't go over the limit since you're a) not watching the road ahead and b) if you stick to the limit that will increase the "danger time" you're spending in the opposite lane meaning you're increasing the risk of encountering an on-coming vehicle.
Therefore, to effect a safe and timely overtake, you may have to "break the law" by exceeding the speed limit, but you do that in the knowledge that you have done so in a way that will not cause a hazard to another road user.
Please try to understand the difference between "Breaking the speed limit" and "Using inappropriate speed for the conditions".
Which of these is more dangerous: Doing 45mph on a clear, empty, straight stretch of road with a 40 limit on a bright sunny day or doing 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway on a rainy, windy night? Which one is legal and which is illegal?
Which one is likely to have an accident happen on it?
Which one is likely to have a speed camera on it?
TomTom has a service which monitors traffic speeds reported back from customer units (via their mobile phones IIRC) that is intended to help you avoid jams by directing you to an alternate use. I don't have a problem with that as it's an opt-in (and paid for) service.
However passing that data on (and, indeed selling it) is something I most certainly *do* have a problem with.
"...including photos, posts, and rants."
Wow! So if you were on Friendster and you posted something you later regret, it *will* actually disappear from the Interwebs instead of being there in perpetuity as per the policy of certain other social networking sites...!
(Deleted and reposted for an egregious typo of "their" instead of "there"!)
"... Software patents may suck, but they're the law of the land. If you play the game, you follow the rules – even when the rules are moronic."
Is this actually The Reg speaking or just Rik Myslewski claiming to speak on behalf of El Reg?
Whatever the case it's a bloody stupid statement as it's saying that you should just shut up and accept the rules of a broken and discredited system instead of standing up to a bully who is trying to exploit those rules for their own benefit and saying "No, we're not going to be held to random and pushed into signing a licensing agreement with a patent troll".
The USA needs to fix its patent system and more cases like this will supply the ammunition to get rid of it.
"...tracking down the individual owners and getting their permission to issue an “uninstall” command from the substitute servers."
Dear Computer User,
We have discovered that your computer is infected with Coreflood Malware. We need your permission to run an uninstall program to remove it from your system.
Please click on the attached .exe file to enable this.
"When US forces break the law, they are tried and punished. How many countries do that?"
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
You keep claiming that people "need a dose of reality", but you seem to ignore any "reality" that doesn't fit in with your totally skewed views!
What, exactly, was the punishment given to the crew of the US Apache Gunship who shot at and killed two reporters, a dozen civilians and *then* shot up the van trying to take wounded to hospital? Oh, that's right, there wasn't a punishment. Only after demands by Reuters was the incident investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
It wasn't until Wikileaks released the video of the event (declared "Classified" by the US Military) that the truth came out, but even then there was no punishment.
You need a dose of reality, but it's clearly not to your taste.
PS As with posts from Matt Bryant, I doubt I'll bother posting again in response since you have now stooped to personal insults and ridiculous claims about how I would act or who I would support which I will treat with the contempt they deserve.
"You're assuming all Gitmo detainees were tortured, that they all lived in horrible conditions, and that they were all inncoent before being detained. "
Really? Am I? Or is this just you twisting my arguments and trying to put words into my mouth to knock down another two Straw Man arguments?
Yes, not every person released from there has claimed they were tortured. That doesn't mean that none of them were tortured.
As for the Red Cross "had to concede that" it was "just propaganda", perhaps I misread this:
"The International Committee of the Red Cross described the treatment of Guantanamo detainees as torture in a confidential report in 2007, according a report on Monday.
The group was allowed access to detainees at the US military prison in Cuba as part of its aid work and interviewed high profile detainees who detailed their abuse in harsh interrogations that the report called 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.'"
Of course there's the small fact that the US Government only allowed the Red Cross access to the detainees *provided* that any reports they made were kept confidential and only given to the US Government, a deal with the RC usually only has to make with Dictatorial Regimes (thankfully someone had the balls to leak the details to ensure the truth got out).
As for "we have the admissiosn from Taleban spokesmen that many fo their own have been captured, including those in Gitmo" again you skew the logic to assume therefore that *all* those captured, including those at Guantanamo Bay *MUST* be Taliban!
And finally your claim that "People like you are so determined to think the worst of the US and Gitmo that you can't see the facts" is just laughable. It is *you* who are so determined to justify the actions of the US and be an apologist for the treatment of people in Guantanamo that you *refuse* to acknowledge any facts apart from those which back up your view.
PS I've wasted enough time here, feel free to have the last word.
"Which all kinda neatly avoids the facf that the mainstream IRA eventually realised it could not win a protracted "war" with the UK and eventually settled for disarment and entry to the political system."
Which all kinda neatly ignores the fact that the mainstream IRA only eventually settled for disarmament and entry into the political system when, instead of spouting rhetoric about "defeating them" (the 1970s equivalent of our current "war on terror"), politicians actually started looking for a practical solution.
"Taleban are out of power and hiding in the hills"
So them breaking into a jail and freeing 100 of their compatriots is merely a statistical error?
Fewer British soldiers have died in Helmand only because they've handed over control to the US.
Military Leaders are worried that the Taliban will resume their actions as soon as the poppy harvest is over.
Yes, Afghanistan has had democratic elections, unfortunately many Afghans are not so happy that they have effected had a US supported and controlled Puppet Government imposed.
If you want to think that this is "success" then you are more naive that even I thought.
"The point I was trying to make was that if you took your example of 'wrongly detained' and then becoming a terrorist... and transposed it to a situation where a person was wrongly incarcerated and then had their conviction overturned, how many went on to commit another crime and get sent back to the pokey?"
Oh dear, Ian, you are *STILL* totally missing the point. How can someone go on "to commit *ANOTHER* crime" if they were "wrongly incarcerated" and then released because it was later discovered that they had *NOT* committed *ANY* crime in the first place?!
"Presumption of Innocence" does not mean "we just haven't caught you yet!"
"Putting a prisoner in Gitmo isn't going to make that person a terrorist."
So, let's see. By your logic anyone who *was* locked up at Guantanamo Bay and was then released and *didn't* subsequently join Al Qaeda obviously *wasn't* a terrorist in the first place, but anyone who *did* subsequently join Al Qaeda clearly must have been a terrorist!
Unfortunately, the fallacy in your logic, as someone has demonstrated in another post, people who were interned without trial in Northern Ireland as suspected terrorists but were later released *did* go on to join the IRA and other such organisations and commit terrorist acts to get revenge for the way they were treated. In other words they were "radicalised" not by others, but by *us*.
"I also suggest that you look at the programs in Saudi Arabia where they rehabilitate those who were in Gitmo."
Is that the "rehabilitation" which was known as "Extraordinary Rendition" which involved electric shocks, beatings, mock executions and other forms of torture by the Saudis on behalf of the USA who decided that water-boarding and sleep deprivation etc weren't sufficient?
As for "I guess I think all pacifists are silly", you said in another post "I mean Graham is definitely a pacifist who seems to have a non-violence at all costs attitude. There's nothing wrong with that naive viewpoint until you try to enforce your beliefs on others." which just shows that you completely fail to understand me.
I do not have a "non-violence at all costs" attitude, however I believe that if you're going to *use* violence, you'd better have a bloody good justification for it and "trying to enforce your beliefs on others" is not such a justification, in fact that is what Al Qaeda want to do to us! So what *you* are saying is that *we* should emulate *them* to "enforce our beliefs" on others.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly.
"Using your logic than anyone in the US that was wrongly convicted and then had their conviction overturned went back to a life of crime."
I think you need to check *your* logic because someone who is "wrongly convicted" ie did *not* have a "life of crime" cannot then "go back to a life of crime" which they didn't have in the first place!
As for: How many detainees were there / are there in Gitmo? How many would fit the description as 'wrongly detained'? I don't know the answer. Do you?
No, I don't and that is the *whole point*! The way to find out if someone is correctly detained is to put them and the evidence in front of a Court of Law and see if they can be Proven Guilty.
And please, stop the ridiculous Straw Man arguments eg about the escape in Afghanistan, they're just making you look silly.
"How about the victims of 9-11?"
How about the families of some of the victims of the September 11th attacks who were objecting to the invasion of Iraq with "Not in My Name" and, more importantly not in the name of their dead loved one...?
Which part of "Until Proven Guilty" don't you understand?
If you can *prove* them guilty then *do* so. Put them in front of a Court of Law (not some Military Kangaroo Court), present the evidence allow them a *proper* Defence and then if they're found guilty, lock them up.
But holding people without trial and torturing them for information which they may not even have is certainly not the mark of a civilised nation which considers itself to be "better" than the terrorists.
...that in keeping them locked up, the US is actually saving foreign lives."
You could also try saying "Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty".
That if you were someone who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, water-boarded, deprived of sleep, repeatedly interrogated to reveal information that you never knew etc etc, you might feel that, on release, joining Al Qaeda would be a bloody good idea!
... but I'm not saying if that's "Good" as in "Virtuous" or "Good" as in "Proficient"...
Is this going replace the Velocity of a Sheep in a Vacuum as a standard El Reg measure?
"...that mere use of an IP address shouldn't be grounds for armed police to raid a person's home."
Yes, but that would involve the use of a bit of sense!
I have no doubt that the Police took great delight in informing neighbours of the reasons for the raid and the arrest to the extent that many will think "well, there's no smoke without fire" and consider that they should tell their kids to stay away from him "just to be on the safe side"...
... Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?
"...to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide,”
And is that "encouragement" something on the lines of "If you decide to insist on your Civil Rights like the Right to Silence, the Right to a Lawyer and the Right of Presumption of Innocence" then we're going to make things really hard for you because we'll assume that you have something to hide and therefore you're guilty"?
"...rising to over three quarters of the 15-16 year olds know how to change the privacy settings on their profile."
So, more children than Adults know how to do this, then...
Actually it was Hot Gossip who appeared on the Kenny Everett Show displaying their "bodily particles" (not to mention Cleo Rocos with her non-bulgarian airbag assets!)
Whereas in this country the suspect's name would probably already be splashed across the front pages of the tabloids such that even if they are subsequently exonerated, their reputation would be destroyed...
"Yeah, we want to zap the bastards *twice*!"
And now they'll no doubt be used to write down the password...!
For all those stories from the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious!
Whilst the move to a new facility following his abominable treatment by the Marines is welcome, I have to wonder whether putting him in the same room as other prisoners is going to be a good idea because there's more than a chance that at least some of them will consider him a "traitor" and decide to try to mete out their own version of "justice".
... not for the Royal Couple, but because whilst everyone else is indoors watching it, I'll be out having a blast on the motorbike on virtually empty roads :-)
I think you mean "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" rather than just "Ad-Hom", however the point is that the attack on Nick Clegg at the end is just the No campaign going beyond the bottom of the barrel because they've already scraped a hole in it...
Like many people I've just received the No2AV campaign's latest missive through my front door.
Now read this and see all the lies, half-truths and misinformation it contains:
Ah, "voluntary" a word that is liable to mean "if you don't volunteer, you're screwed, because without this you're not going to be able to do business online"
... "Microsoft should be held to a lower burden of proof than anyone else, but only when *they* are the defendants..."
"I think maybe you just sleep easier when you can write it all off as childish mythology?"
Err, WTF? What makes you think that I lose any sleep over this at all?
It's the "believers" who worry because they have been convinced that if they don't do X or say Y or behave like Z that they're they're damned to some Nasty Place(tm) instead of going to some Nice Place(tm)
PS Try looking at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sky%20fairy for definitions of "sky fairy" dating back at least 5 years.
"...if he wants to have a relationship with God."
So Man should abandon hopes of being like someone's mythical sky fairy in order to "have a relationship" with said mythical sky fairy?
I sense a circular argument here...
... need to go back and read the original Fleming stories before they start talking about "Real Bond(tm)"
At least in Quantum of Solace they got the drink right!