Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

Meanwhile, I never said NONE of them would rejoin the fight against the US, i said they'd disappear into the caves (with the implication that they would rejoin their movements).

It's easy enough to pull the quote, you said:

They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.

Declaring they won't so much as fart in our direction seems pretty close to saying NONE of them would rejoin the fight. Almost certainly not 30% of them.

And you would use that to justify keeping the other 70% in prison forever? Really? How sick are you?

I never said anything about what to do with them, I simply refuted your claim about them holding in farts upon release...What I said was ridiculous... Yeah, that's a good summary there.

You make the argument that if they aren't an existential threat then they aren't any threat at all what so ever and should be released unconditionally. That is ridiculous.

The reality is they are prisoners of war that were mostly fighting for none state entities that insist their war is eternal. Interpretations of the Geneva Convention and international law are murky here. Treatment and holding of POWs depends upon how their 'nation' was conducting itself. Release typically isn't dictated and is assumed to be at end of hostilities, which kind sucks for you if you were fighting a holy war to the end of eternity.

But hey, you've decided it's simply a matter of release everyone. Might as well not even bring them back to a prison. In the future upon capturing an enemy soldier maybe our troops should give the detainee some rations, a weapon, ammo and send them on their way. I mean if your going to go to the extreme exaggerated misrepresentation of positions, so can I, right?

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

The government might have to prove their charges in a court of law? My god, how evil that idea is. Clearly they must be bad guys if its claimed they are so.

I can't shake this feeling that this complicated issue isn't as simple as your single sentence declaration.

The question standing is what is the correct response to non-state actors committing acts of war, and not just once or twice but able to sustain a concerted war effort? The bad actors in this case are not citizens in the state they are attacking in America and Europe. The nations they are based out of are unable or unwilling to extradite them. The typical civilian courts are entirely incapable of addressing such a situation. The collection of evidence after proper warrants being served and an orderly arrest by uniformed officers complete with reading miranda rights is not possible.

What response do you think is correct or best when faced with sustained war acts from non-state entities? The notion of going to war in return and treating those captured as POWs, and more over POWs of an army that refused to abide by the Geneva convention reflects reality, uncomfortable as that may be.

Comment Hugs for everyone! (Score 1) 346

The short version: Don't want to worry about terrorism ? Quit bombing shit.

That's right, because if history teaches us anything, it is that refusing to ever use military forces leads to peace...

Well, either that or violent military repression at the hands of those that ARE willing to use it, I think you an I maybe confuse those two lessons sometimes...

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free.

That is what SHOULD happen. They are not criminals, they are not POWs. They should be deported and set free.

I REALLY don't care how "bad" the government tells us they are, nor even how bad they really actually are.

We cannot simply take prisoners and hold them forever. And its not like they really pose a threat. Not a serious one anyway, certainly nothing existential, or even substantial. They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.

If they personally orchestrate the fall of the United States, well, then: you were right, we should have held them. But we both know that's ridiculous.

There are far greater threats in the world then those guys.

...They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction...

As many as 30 percent of the nearly 600 released Gitmo inmates started fighting again. "Ridiculous" was the right word, you just used it wrong.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

Yes, the military has prisons where they put their own. However, that's legally a totally different situation from an enemy combatant taken on the battle field. If you put the Gitmo detainees on American soil, they will demand due process as non-military personnel and would likely get it. If you run these cases though out civilian legal system, they are going to walk free.

So, let me get this straight: you're upset that the American justice system would work as designed, which would lead to a result you don't like. Did I get that right? Okay, in that case, I'll respond in the most patriotic way I know how:


Funny how the parent directly defended your argument, in advance, and you still choose to cut that context out just to fit your narrative. Parent also noted:
The military is NOT a law enforcing agency (except for the Coast Guard) and it is this way for a very good reason. They do not collect evidence legally when they are dealing with enemy combatants. They have the legal ability to capture, detain and kill combatants within the rules of war, which are totally different than the rules dealing with criminal prosecutions. And this is how it should be.

The prisoners in Gitmo were primarily captured in war zones. Miranda rights, warrants, and all manner of other requirements for due process have no place there. Yes, I know the bleeding heart majority don't like that reality. If you can't do any better than ignoring those facts and barelling on as though they don't exist and ignoring that somebody pointed it out to you then you are a part of the problem. What to do with the Girmo prisoners isn't as simple as just put them in civilian prison in America. It isn't as simple as just leave them there or just send them home. It's complicated and ignoring basic facts like that they were captured while actively trying to kill Americans does not lead to a better answer.

Comment Re:Saddam and his alternatives (Score 1) 36

The ouster of Saddam was justified on the grounds that he was supporting terrorism
I don't feel bound to the Bush admins pathetic efforts at defending its actions in Iraq. I even vehemently agree with how grossly ignorant the push for the invasion and ham fisted bungling of the occupation afterwards were.
Saddam had committed genocide on multiple occasions, all signatories to convention on genocide were obligated to act to prevent that, or failing that to punish those responsible. Grounds enough right there for removal of Saddam's regime.
Saddam had violated the NPT, grounds enough to be removed long ago but nobody but Israel did anything by blowing up the reactor the French sold him.
Saddam had repeatedly used chemical weapons on his neighbours and his own people, grounds enough for his removal.
Saddam had repeatedly invaded and taken over his neighbouring countries, grounds enough for his removal.

That the world had failed to have the will to do so doesn't change things. That Bush decided not lay these as the heart of his justifications doesn't suddenly change any of these facts, it just makes Bush case weak and easy to poke full of holes. My reasons for declaring Saddams removal was a good thing depends not one whit on how well or poorly Bush made or failed to make his case.

I have to insist that the isolationist argument of it is ok to ignore genocide and other gross abuses of human rights because it is far away is morally bankrupt. If Iraq had been split into Kurdish, Shia and Sunni partitions most this could probably have been mitigated, but Bush sent in an administrator that knew nothing about Iraq a full week to get himself up to speed before he was on the ground. Unsurprisingly he did a terrifically bad job. Even with that, a post Saddam mostly controlled by Iran and pseudo independent Kurdish people is still a big improvement. It still nowhere near as good as we could have hoped, but bumbling buffoonery can only improve so much over a brutal repressive dictator. An improvement though is absolutely still what it is. The 60% of Iraqis that are Shia sleep better now than before, the 20% that are Kurdish sleep better. If the remaining 20% of Sunni Iraqis are now still living in chaos and facing horrors like ISIL that is still a step from having 80% of Iraqis terrorized versus 20%. Still very much a bad situation, but IMHO less bad than the Saddam era.

Comment Re:Perpetuating the lie (Score 1) 36

"...that sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world."
Bullshit. Those who repeat this lie are the diehard Clinton supporters who do not possess a shred of intellectual honesty.

I never knew that Al Jazeera was among the diehard Clinton supporters.

From the Arab backed media outlets timeline linked above, dozens of people died and hundreds more were injured in the protests. That is the definition of deadly protests so I've not a clue were you are coming from save complete and total ignorance.

Comment Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! (Score 1) 36

And they know that it's better to have a corrupt-as-hell extortionist scumbag military in charge, and at least maintaining a status quo peace, than to take their chances with an Arab-Spring type popular radical government that might easily stumble into a regional nuclear war and possibly set off WWIII.

Learning are they? Slowly, but yes... who would've thought that encouraging the overthrow of a sovereign nation might backfire?

It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

Ignorant knee jerk stupidity.

Learning? Bush entrenched that standard with his cowboy speech declaring you are either with us or against us. Before troops where deployed to Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The express purpose was to declare to Musharaf that America was no longer willing to tolerate Pakistan playing nice and cozy with Islamic jihadists like Al Qaida and the Taliban. Of course, in diplomacy it wasn't advisable for the president of the United States to publicly call out the leader of Pakistan for essentially supporting and partnering with such guys, hence his public speech that didn't name any names. Be certain that in back channels though the message was made very clear that America was going to be invading Afghanistan, and the question of whether that included Pakistan as well rested with whether Pakistan opted to change sides and help out or not.

That bit though is more understandable to miss. If you don't follow Pakistani news and recent events mainstream media has been more than happy to leave out the underlying reality. Even as Bin Laden is invariably found living happily a mile away from the Officer Training Academy Musharaf himself graduated from...

It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

Again, I'm guessing before the invasion you couldn't find Iraq on a map and more over, since then have refused to bother studying Iraqi history in any, shape or form prior to 2001.

Why don't we take a quick gander at the track record of Saddam's Sunni's while in power.
The Iran-Iraq war, more than a million dead and seeing the most extensive deployment of chemical weapons since they were banned after WW1.
The Al-Anfal campaign, the genocide of 100,000 Iraqi Kurds including again more chemical weapon attacks. The cake goes to Saddam's brother though for incorporating the execution of all breeding age Kurdish men and systematic rape of women with the intended goal of impregnating them with half-arab children. The goal being to very extensive breed the Kurdish people out of existence.
The 1991 extermination of Shia Iraqi's leaving an estimated quarter million dead.

And those are just the absolutely overt crimes of the regime. The daily systemic repression and suppression of any dissent with similarly brutal murder and collective punishment was the norm under Saddam's Sunni's.

Hell, even Saddam's first day 'on the job' is good indicator. Having killed off all opposition parties and consolidated his own parties control of Iraq, Saddam held a grand meeting of his own party. He then brought an obviously and visibily tortured man and gravely announced that there were traitors in the room with them. The tortured man then began naming the names of 'consipirators' and one by one they were dragged up to the front as the room began to panic pledge their allegiance and loyalty to Saddam, surely they were not a traitor. Once Saddam had his chosen people brought up, he turned to the remaining members and did one better than the Stalin playbook he'd been running from so far. He declared that outside there were guns and the traitors were to be executed. The people to execute them would be everyone in the audience not already chosen as a 'traitor', thus sealing them all to his crime.

Saddam was a monster rarely rivalled in history and a statement like It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power. is so ignorant it boggles the mind.

Comment Re:Industrial pig farming (Score 1) 125

Maybe the pigs wouldn't be getting the diseases in the first place if they weren't kept cheek-by-jowl in their own filth, in pens where they can't even turn around.

But have no fear, now that there are laws against taking pictures of factory pig farms and the horrific conditions the animals are kept in even from public property, we're all going to be more safe because of genetic engineering.

You realize that pigs are rather cruel mean and violent creatures? try talking to folks that work on pig farms, in the good old days before "industrial" farming one of the daily chores was to count the pigs in each open pen. The reason you had to count was because the pigs would constantly nip and bite each other if they sensed any weakness, and if they ever broke skin they could and would eat an entire pig in a day. A large part of the 'cruel' conditions pigs are kept in today revolve around things like keeping them from killing each other.

Of course, I guess you can't blame them too much, they are made of bacon.

Comment Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful (Score 0) 475

That is in NO WAY a scientific position, it is 100% a POLITICAL position.

Bullshit. Just because it's not phrased in scientific-journal-language doesn't mean its contents aren't scientific. Sure, saying "death" instead of using clean, nice scientific terminology is a different way of putting it, but it is a scientific position, because continuing the thought from the immediate effects to the consequences is necessary.

Coal power plants also provide very cheap electricity.

You might want to double-check it. In my country, coal is only cheap because of hidden government subsidies.

Citation required. To get energy from coal the steps are trivial. Pick up lump of coal from the ground, light lump of coal on fire, done. Sorry to burst your bubble, but developing nations aren't running on coal because of a deep seeded desire to subsidize the coal industry or something. It is the cheapest and easiest way to produce energy right now. I'm all in favour of switching over to nuclear power as France already did years ago. Truth be told, if anybody was taking climate change seriously 30 years ago we'd have already switched over to nuclear on a large scale. The environmental movement though made sure to exhaust themselves crushing that idea, Greenpeace is still trying to crush nuclear for that matter :(.

We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times

According to the WHO, we are talking about five million additional deaths from the health side effects of climate change alone.

The UN is talking about seven million premature deaths per year due to pollution.

Google a little for youself and you will find much, much more.

"Your children will die from this shit" is quite an adequate summary, IMHO.

You seem a bit confused on what your sources are saying. Your WHO report, which they acknowledge is very approximate spreads out the 5 million deaths you quote over 20 years. The UN report you cite is NOT deaths from CO2 or climate change, it is deaths from all the other toxic crap that gets burned up from coal. It does cite 7 million per year, but if that's what the non-CO2 pollution is causing today, I'm thinking the priority should be on that part. Focusing on the very approximate 5 million that might die over a span of 20 years sometime after 2030 seems the wrong focus.

If we want to get off coal, climate change is the least of the reasons to do so. As you've already referenced, 7 million die each year to air pollution, and WHO's estimates expect climate change to kill less than that over a span of 20.

China is probably the biggest body count for excess deaths to air pollution. That said, the crazy amount of coal they are burning has also allowed them to move their economy forward. Since the 30-40 million that died in China leading into 1960, the per capita GDP has come from a 1962 low of $83.33 to a 2014 all time high of $3865.88.

But abject poverty doesn't kill anybody does it? If only they knew that using coal was worse for them than dying penniless in a ditch.

Comment Re:Environmental concerns (Score 1) 475

"If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned" (by environmentalists)

Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.

There are very few definitions of 'environmental concern' that fit your description. The large environmental movements from groups like the Sierra Club and the Greenpeace are hardly based on sound scientific principle.

One of Greenpeace's top 3 bullet points on climate and energy is preaching AGAINST nuclear power, the one technology that can do the most today to reduce our climate impact.

The Sierra Club's website right now has one of it's biggest bullet points as "Save the Bees". This in spite of the fact that bee colony numbers in the Us are at a 20 year high. The activism is lobbying to abolish evil neonicitinoid pesticides that are killing bees. The same neonic pesticides that were adopted to replace ones much more harmful to bees... Not sure we really are helping bees by going backwards, and the alternative of simply banning all pesticides means jacking food prices so high that the poor go back to eating far worse diets again.

Sorry, but environmental concern as represented by the largest self-proclaimed such groups is anything but 'scientific' and is rountinely pushing agendas contrary to the science,

Comment Re:Ah the right wing story progression (Score 1) 475

What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?

Sorry, no thanks.

Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.

Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.

The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.

Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?

It depends greatly on what your entirely new clean energy industry is. If it's adopting electric cars and nuclear power, then we're already well on our way. It's just the greens that we need to get onside with no longer actively preventing the adoption of nuclear power.

If you are talking about subsidizing solar and wind, or heavily taxing existing energy sources that's different. If you are talking about hard global caps on emissions, you are talking about economic depression and war...

There's a spectrum of options and simply saying clean energy is a win-win-win with no downside is cute in it's naivety.

Comment Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful (Score 1) 475

Coal is absolutely horribly in every way, and "death" is the absolutely correct association people should have.
That is in NO WAY a scientific position, it is 100% a POLITICAL position. Coal produces CO2 which causes global warming is a scientific statement. Coal power plants dump out more radioactive materials into the environment than any nuclear power plant is a scientific statement. Equating that to excess deaths ignores the bigger picture though. Coal power plants also provide very cheap electricity. In China that has meant employment and a better life for millions. In developing nations cheap energy enables development which greatly benefits everyone. Honestly, to hear guys like Hansen and yourself tell it the world is buying and burning coal because killing people is a hobby or something.

The problem is that we need to hammer the point "your children will die from this shit" into the heads of people who don't care about the science.
The problem is when scientists start claiming "Your children will die!" but the evidence is a hell of a lot more mundane and pedestrian than that. We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times. Even the IPCC worst case scenario projects sea level rise by 2100 as less than a metre, and that worst case has us accelerating our fossil fuel usage indefinitely. The assumption that technology will stop progressing and electric vehicles and nuclear power won't start changing out oil and coal power isn't exactly the most probable scenario. In the last 100 years we've come from horses and books by candle light to space craft and the internet.

Comment James Hansen is a becoming shameful (Score 4, Insightful) 475

I get how as a scientist watching things you want to push people to action. That being said, James Hansen has gone a little overboard IMHO and into the realm of damaging the credibility of scientists in general be politicizing things himself. He's written things like:
Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years
This despite the IPCC estimates that gain/loss in glaciers will be regionally dependant on precipitation changes(and this based on admittedly poorly modelled precipitation).

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
This isn't precisely a statement backed by peer reviewed evidence either...

When people are angry about the science being politicized, it does NOT help for the scientists to go over board politicizing things themselves in the hope of being a counter-balance. It doesn't work between FOX and MSNBC counter balancing each other from Rep-Dem sides of things, and it doesn't work for educating people on the science either. You just get more and more grandiose hyperbole, half truths and flat out propaganda from both sides.

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis