Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

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) 343

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) 343

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) 343

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) 343

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:

FUCK YOU, YOU FREEDOM-HATING SOCIOPATH! YOU ARE WORSE THAN ANY TERRORIST!

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:The gun is pointing at the foot (Score 5, Funny) 389

They seem to be really trying to shoot themselves in the foot lately.

No worries, the feet will be removed in v45.0
You will still have plugins for right foot, left foot, and foot extensions, someone just need to write them. And sign them for every new version.

In 46.0, the rendering engine will be removed, but no worries, you can use a plugin.
in 47.0, the plugin loader will be removed, but no worries, you can load an extension for loading plugins.

Open Source

Python 3 Is Coming To Scrapy (scrapinghub.com) 86

New submitter Valdir Stumm Junior writes: Scrapy with beta Python 3 support is finally here! Released through Scrapy 1.1.0rc1, this is the result of several months of hard work on the part of the Scrapy community and Scrapinghub engineers.

This is a huge milestone for all you Scrapy users (and those who haven't used Scrapy due to the lack of Python 3). Scrapy veterans and new adopters will soon be able to move their entire stack to Python 3 once the release becomes stable. Keep in mind that since this a release candidate, it is not ready to be used in production.

Cloud

CoreOS Launches Rkt 1.0 (eweek.com) 49

darthcamaro writes: Docker is about to get some real competition in the container runtime space, thanks to the lofficial aunch of rkt 1.0. CoreOS started building rkt in 2014 and after more than a year of security, performance and feature improvement are now ready to declare it 'production-ready.' While rkt is a docker runtime rival, docker apps will run in rkt, giving using a new runtime choice: "rkt will remain compatible with the Docker-specific image format, as well as its own native App Container Image (ACI). That means developers can build containers with Docker and run those containers with rkt. In addition, CoreOS will support the growing ecosystem of tools based around the ACI format."

Comment Re:Trans-Pacific Partnership (Score 1) 178

Agreed. Whenever using an abbreviation or acronym that isn't universal, spell it out the first time you use it. And TPP is certainly not an universal abbreviation. The use here isn't even the most common one.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for a reason why saying TPP without qualifying it is a bad idea, especially on a nerd site.

Piracy

All 12 Member Countries Sign Off On the TPP (freezenet.ca) 178

Dangerous_Minds writes: News is surfacing that the TPP has officially been signed by all 12 member countries. This marks the beginning of the final step towards ratification. Freezenet has a quick rundown of what copyright provisions are contained in the agreement, including traffic shaping, site blocking, enforcement of copyright when infringement is "imminent," and a government mandate for ISPs to install backdoors for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement on the Internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.

Working...