false conviction leading to execution
A Planet Visitor
I will growl up greenys and flop em in your face for my amusement. I will
cough them up from the depths of my lungs. I am keeping the shit down there,
I am hissing and wheezing just waiting to chuck it over you. If you try and
wipe it off, I will rinse a couple of blasts on your nose. I will knock your
head that many time, you will be seeing sparks and beg me to stop. Telling
me you have had enough and I will continue. I will say when you have had
enough.
I pissed all up your bitch's legs the other day, she was horrified and
started screaming so I blacked her fucking eyes for her and sticked her in
the gut with my blade. She went quiet as she looked at me in confusion
slowly falling to the floor with disbelief and fear. I was laughing and kept
slapping the top of her head saying 'what the fucks up with you bitch?,
you'll be alright dunt'ya.
I asked her if she would like to bare witness and sample a bit of pedigree,
you know, a thorough breed stallion war bird? . She had the fucker anyway. I
love raping women's arse holes especially when I am smearing their fucking
claret in their hair and faces. I always pull out and ram it up their cunts
to ejaculate. I've got fucking kids everywhere.
You ever fucking test me again and I will show you a world of pain,
unimaginable. I will bust you up like you fucking faggot. You will endure
the penetration of a 100 big black cotton picking niggas riding your batty
like the bitch you are. I will tattoo cunt over your face and hands, then
leave you stabbed and cut to fucking ribbons.
People will call you stripe, you look and feel like a fucking watering can.
Laterz
Vlad Drac
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
> uuuuh can you do one with me as well?
I enjoyed that one.
Perhaps I am as much a sick little monkey as you, Vlad. ;)
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
A Planet Visitor
someone mentally sick who is a friend of another who is also mentally
sick, with the handle dirtdog... who has been so totally and logically
destroyed by Planet Visitor that he no longer posts here. dirtdog thus
has sent his mentally sick clone; who has never had an original thought in
his life; here to fraudulently post under the handle of Planet Visitor. I can't
tell you how much those two remind me of Steinbeck's George and Lennie.
This mental retard has had many internet providers remove his service,
because of the obscene dementia he exhibits, and the complains such
obscene dementia have generated. Yet in a world hungry for a buck, it
seems there is ALWAYS a provider that will sink to a new level of
greed by providing him the sop he needs to spread his poisonous
venom. He previously posted under the handle SANDO, SANDO THE
DEPRAVED, SANDO THE SICK, and SANDO NEEDS HELP. Now, in
response to the request of his mentally sick friend, dirtdog, he has
settled on fraudulently posting under the handle of someone that he realizes
he would be unable to deal with in the real world, or even in the world we
have in Usenet.
Please be aware and check the source of posts having the handle 'A Planet
Visitor.' The fraud is actually named scott harrison and lives in England,
which should cause England pause in judging its mental stability, which
I had previously noted as superior to the U.S. Mr harrison is obviously
the exception to any such belief. If you recognize the post originates in
the U.K.., rest assured it is not from Planet Visitor. Look for NNTP-Posting-
Host: scottharrison.demon.co.uk:158.152.112.128. The URL 158.152.112.128,
or demon.co.uk provides proof that it is NOT from Planet Visitor. Anyone
feeling offended by the posts of the mental retard Scott Harrison, can forward
such complaints to ab...@demon.net, noting the URL and post in question.
Thank you,
The original Planet Visitor
"scottharrison" <demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1025806430.28853....@news.demon.co.uk...
<some real mental sickness clipped>
>
>
>
Vlad Drac
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>For anyone interested, the original post is not from Planet Visitor. It is from
>someone mentally sick who is a friend of another who is also mentally
>sick, with the handle dirtdog...
We know, don't worry
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
That's not the point, Vlad.
PV is concerned about the record of his posting as what we babble here
is preserved for posterity by various archivers. Some of those archives
are publicly searchable (Google Groups being an example) and someone
finding a forged post in isolation might attribute its content to the
person whose handle is PV. Therefore, forgeries are misrepresentation
of individuals. _We_ know, but does someone searching Google Groups
know?
I'm ambivalent about these "forgeries" in the true sense of the word
"ambivalent".
They are wrong. You don't forge the posts of others and that's all
there is to it.
They are funny. Posted under Sando's real name, they would have given
me a good giggle without it being tainted by the fact that the post is a
forgery.
BTW, you are a sick little monkey.
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:1025806430.28853....@news.demon.co.uk...
Oh, Planet Visitor!
I wish you'd stop making posts of this nature - they are not very becoming.
Just because QZD is occasionally rude about you, you threaten to rape and
murder his companion! It is a little harsh, and not the sort of thing I
would expect from a military man.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
Excuse me for just a moment whilst I clear away the snot from my top
lip...
<snipped beginning of furious rant>
<of Sando>
> who is a friend of another who is also mentally
>sick, with the handle dirtdog...
Quite true.
Mentally sick I may be, but at all times you must remember that I am
also mentally _superior_ to your good self - by quite a significant
margin.
Either quality in isolation would quite possibly not bother you one
iota. In combination, though, they drive you fucking _mad_ (quite
literally!).
> who has been so totally and logically
>destroyed by Planet Visitor that he no longer posts here.
Heh. Have you still not learned that such blatant, almost vulgar
trolling attempts are doomed to failure as against one so mentally
elevated as myself?
In fact, I find it so hard to believe that even one so fucking thick
as yourself could fail to appreciate the above that I shall interpret
your words as a thinly disguised query as to why my posting of late
has been sparse. This is something that I shall be most pleased to
comment upon - mainly because it gives me a good opportunity to boast!
You see, PV, although (as I have mentioned many times) my chosen
specialist subjects are in fact the law of Intellectual Property and
general contractual disputes, I am a damn fine Conveyancer - an area
of law which allows me to make the most of being a pedantic little
twat.
A wee bit of research on Google (your premier resource for legal
research) will reveal to you that the property market in England and
Wales is presently booming - almost on the scale that it did during
the 80s (note the lack of an apostrophe). This means two things:
1- There is more work than the usual couple of slags who do
conveyancing at our place can deal with
2- Our fees have increased by almost 50% for domestic conveyancing
As any budding capitalist will tell you, while the sun shines, we must
make hay - hence the fact that I am presently working days often
exceeding 14 hours, and pulling in costs that would make your fucking
eyes water.
Bottom line, I have barely enough time to eat, let alone engage in
pointless and futile banter with your good self on a daily basis.
Never fear, though - when the interest rates increase and the daft
twats who are paying a hundred bags of sand for shitty terraces start
getting the fuckers repossessed, I'll be back to fucking off at five
on the dot. This will give me considerably more time to wind you up.
> dirtdog thus
>has sent his mentally sick clone; who has never had an original thought in
>his life; here to fraudulently post under the handle of Planet Visitor. I can't
>tell you how much those two remind me of Steinbeck's George and Lennie.
>
>This mental retard has had many internet providers remove his service,
>because of the obscene dementia he exhibits, and the complains such
>obscene dementia have generated. Yet in a world hungry for a buck, it
>seems there is ALWAYS a provider that will sink to a new level of
>greed by providing him the sop he needs to spread his poisonous
>venom.
Now, PV, although we are never going to prevent you from posting
sickeningly holier-than-thou diatribes such as this which Sando has so
skillfully, yet simply, drawn you into, you could at least refrain
from talking complete and utter _shite_.
Since I realise you suffer from difficulties in construing complex
paragraph and sentence structures, allow me to remind you what an
immense fuckwit you are by means of succinct bullet points:
1- Whatever you or any other may think, Sando is certainly not my
'clone' - we each have quite distinct posting styles and
personalities, and I note that even you have finally ceased the
nonsensical claim that we are the same person.
2- Your definition of 'fraud' is somewhat flawed. Sando makes no
effort whatsoever to truly masquerade as you
3- Sando quite patently posts from the same Internet provider (and
indeed the same account) which he did last this time last year.
Amazingly, you go on to acknowledge this yourself later on this this
particularly fuckwitted post. Hence, your second paragrah above is
complete and utter nonsense on a scale I am unaccustomed to seeing,
even from you.
As always, a decent insult or verbal assault must contain at least an
element of truth. Your shite above therefore fails. Dismally.
<yada yada yada snipped>
>
>Please be aware and check the source of posts having the handle 'A Planet
>Visitor.' The fraud is actually named scott harrison and lives in England,
*snort*
You thick twat. Inspector fuckin' Morse you certainly ain't, old boy.
Besides, you have precisely _zero_ property in the handle 'A Planet
Visitor'. None whatsoever. Learn to live with it.
>which should cause England pause in judging its mental stability, which
>I had previously noted as superior to the U.S. Mr harrison is obviously
>the exception to any such belief.
Ah, but 'Mr Harrison' certainly has managed to show a good deal of
mental faculty here, PV. He has quite patently embarked upon a series
of posts designed to elicit an outraged response from yourself. He has
succeeded in spectacular fashion.
> If you recognize the post originates in
>the U.K.., rest assured it is not from Planet Visitor. Look for NNTP-Posting-
>Host: scottharrison.demon.co.uk:158.152.112.128. The URL 158.152.112.128,
>or demon.co.uk provides proof that it is NOT from Planet Visitor. Anyone
>feeling offended by the posts of the mental retard Scott Harrison, can forward
>such complaints to ab...@demon.net, noting the URL and post in question.
Oh dear. What a silly, bitter old man - and so very, very clueless.
Think of how many scores of abuse reports Demon have received
regarding Sando's posts. They have tolerated talk of infant rape,
killing pregnant women, bestiality and other topics. His account
remains. I can well imagine them pulling his account without delay
because you are crying like a little bitch due to his posting using
'your' handle.
Get a fucking grip, you fucking arse bandit.
<snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
Shut up you fucking sanctimonious colonist.
'Sando' is no more Sando's real name than 'A Planet Visitor' is the
real name of the Mad One. Furthermore, 'A Planet Visitor' is no less
Sando's real name than 'Sando' is. none of us have any property
whatsoever in our Usenet display names.
Anyway, I don't believe you for one second. Tell the truth and stop
being such a nicer. The post was _exceptionally_ funny. I laughed so
fucking hard that I suffered a major coughing fit - beyond compare, as
he would say.
The fact that PV gets so wound up over petty little things is reason
to pander to him. This sort or response, QZD, merely encourages his
childishness.
As an aside, I should have thought that an IT professional such as
yourself would at least know what constitutes a forged post - becuase
Sando posting as 'A Planet Visitor' patently is not.
w00f
Cerberus
A Planet Visitor
has set aside this special time to humiliate himself in public. Read on
to see how very outraged he has become about the fact that I posted
a response to his sock-puppet, who had posted under a fraudulent
handle. Watch him wiggle and squirm in defense of his sock-puppet.
Watch his face turn red, and his eyes bulge out as he works to
argue for his best-buddy SANDO. Two peas in a pod. What a
laugh.
"dirtdog" <dog...@w00f.w00f.cxm> whined in message news:9p1ciuobbb8b272jh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 02:44:00 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped rant>
> > who is a friend of another who is also mentally
> >sick, with the handle dirtdog...
>
> Quite true.
>
Isn't that simply agreeing with the obvious?
> Mentally sick I may be, but at all times you must remember that I am
> also mentally _superior_ to your good self - by quite a significant
> margin.
>
All those mentally sick believe they are superior, dirt. It goes along
with the sickness. Sad little man.
> Either quality in isolation would quite possibly not bother you one
> iota. In combination, though, they drive you ****ing _mad_ (quite
> literally!).
>
Hardly.. having trash you so badly, you remain only an example
of catagenesis to the lawyer trade. Waving your feeble arguments
here. No longer capable of rational thought, and depending on
quaint little phrases such as 'law dictionaries are for wannabees.'
> > who has been so totally and logically
> >destroyed by Planet Visitor that he no longer posts here.
>
> Heh. Have you still not learned that such blatant, almost vulgar
> trolling attempts are doomed to failure as against one so mentally
> elevated as myself?
>
Right up there with your 'classical education,' and your ignorance
as to Boswell. Sad little man.
> In fact, I find it so hard to believe that even one so ****ing thick
> as yourself could fail to appreciate the above that I shall interpret
> your words as a thinly disguised query as to why my posting of late
> has been sparse. This is something that I shall be most pleased to
> comment upon - mainly because it gives me a good opportunity to boast!
>
We already know why, dirt. It has to do with 'mitigating circumstances.'
You've been afraid to raise your hand, having had it shot off so
effectively. Sad little man.
> You see, PV, although (as I have mentioned many times) my chosen
> specialist subjects are in fact the law of Intellectual Property and
> general contractual disputes, I am a damn fine Conveyancer - an area
> of law which allows me to make the most of being a pedantic little
> twat.
Oh... don't you wish there were such a profession which paid money
for being a pedantic little twat. You'd rake it in. Unfortunately, there
is no such profession, and those who are pedantic little twats usually
don't last very long at any profession, unless they have some special
talent. And, to your great disappointment, there is no great demand
for 'shit slingers.' Verily, my belief is that you've actually been gone
because you've been in mourning over the death of Linda Lovelace.
> A wee bit of research on Google (your premier resource for legal
> research) will reveal to you that the property market in England and
> Wales is presently booming - almost on the scale that it did during
> the 80s (note the lack of an apostrophe). This means two things:
>
> 1- There is more work than the usual couple of slags who do
> conveyancing at our place can deal with
>
> 2- Our fees have increased by almost 50% for domestic conveyancing
>
> As any budding capitalist will tell you, while the sun shines, we must
> make hay - hence the fact that I am presently working days often
> exceeding 14 hours, and pulling in costs that would make your ****ing
> eyes water.
>
> Bottom line, I have barely enough time to eat, let alone engage in
> pointless and futile banter with your good self on a daily basis.
>
> Never fear, though - when the interest rates increase and the daft
> twats who are paying a hundred bags of sand for shitty terraces start
> getting the ****ers repossessed, I'll be back to ****ing off at five
> on the dot. This will give me considerably more time to wind you up.
>
Now are we all supposed to be entranced by the above? As we should
be when Earl explains what he had for lunch? Do you have any idea
just how close your resemblance is to Earl in your preening display here?
Is there some sort of low self-esteem problem you have? Knowing a
bit about the psychological drives that cause some to announce
that everything is going just swimmingly, when one is actually on the point
of drowning, I believe we can see it here. Here where you find it necessary
to disgrace yourself in a pitiful display of self-adulation, which only
shows how insecure you actually are. I have a feeling that underlying
that grand pronouncement that you are making money is FEAR actually
revealing itself here, in this anonymous forum. I have a feeling your
'profession' is actually in stasis. I have a feeling that you are actually
scrambling to make ends meet, in fear that you, yourself, are in danger
of being evicted unless you can come up with last month's rent. Have
you considered the 'internet chain-letter' scam to come up with the
bucks? You know you could start one, put your name right at the top,
and start praying. Sad little man.
> > dirtdog thus
> >has sent his mentally sick clone; who has never had an original thought in
> >his life; here to fraudulently post under the handle of Planet Visitor. I can't
> >tell you how much those two remind me of Steinbeck's George and Lennie.
> >
> >This mental retard has had many internet providers remove his service,
> >because of the obscene dementia he exhibits, and the complains such
> >obscene dementia have generated. Yet in a world hungry for a buck, it
> >seems there is ALWAYS a provider that will sink to a new level of
> >greed by providing him the sop he needs to spread his poisonous
> >venom.
>
> Now, PV, although we are never going to prevent you from posting
> sickeningly holier-than-thou diatribes such as this which Sando has so
> skillfully, yet simply, drawn you into, you could at least refrain
> from talking complete and utter _shite_.
>
When it comes to 'talking compete and utter _shite_ ,' I bow to the
Master, 'dirt,' and his sock-puppet SANDO. The two scatophagians.
> Since I realise you suffer from difficulties in construing complex
> paragraph and sentence structures, allow me to remind you what an
> immense ****wit you are by means of succinct bullet points:
>
> 1- Whatever you or any other may think, Sando is certainly not my
> 'clone' - we each have quite distinct posting styles and
> personalities, and I note that even you have finally ceased the
> nonsensical claim that we are the same person.
>
Oh, dear... make no mistake... he's your 'clone.' Quite clearly.
Everyone recognizes you have formed a bond which can only
be termed mutually-obsequious. Both of you are fawning,
clinging, sycophants toward each other. It's obvious that he has
directed his efforts toward me, because I made you the fool (which
was always a rather easy task). You now return, angry, outraged,
hysterical, face flushed ruby red in the defense of him, since I have
remarked to his post. Jesus, dirt... wake up and smell the coffee...
everyone can see through your simplistic charade.
> 2- Your definition of 'fraud' is somewhat flawed. Sando makes no
> effort whatsoever to truly masquerade as you
>
La de da. I think you'll find that he used the SAME handle that I do.
Whether I have any hold on that handle or not (I do not). His INTENT
is quite clear. Apparently he is unable to post from his own handle
anymore. As a 'lawyer' (ho ho ho), you should realize that he truly
DOES intent to masquerade as A Planet Visitor, since that is the
handle he posted under. It no longer bothers me, although you think
it does, and he does as well, which is why he does so, and why you
now believe you need to express pious outrage that I have dare
questioned his posts. Clearly, the handle has been damaged beyond
repair in any google historical sense, and I no longer worry about that
trivial point. But it certainly doesn't affect ME personally. It's just
more certain proof that my not providing information regarding my
true identity is one of the more correct acts I've taken. Morons like
you and him and others are no better than disgusting meat-flies that
feed off the flesh of others, without an original thought in your feeble
minds. Obviously, if SANDO had such an original thought he would
not feel the need to post under a handle already known to come from
another.
BTW -- You're also a racist. And of course, so is your sock-puppet.
> 3- Sando quite patently posts from the same Internet provider (and
> indeed the same account) which he did last this time last year.
> Amazingly, you go on to acknowledge this yourself later on this this
> particularly ****witted post. Hence, your second paragrah above is
> complete and utter nonsense on a scale I am unaccustomed to seeing,
> even from you.
>
'this' 'this' 'this' 'this' ... you're becoming obsessed, dirt.
> As always, a decent insult or verbal assault must contain at least an
> element of truth. Your shite above therefore fails. Dismally.
>
pitiful. I can see your point, but I still think you're full of shit. Since you've
never learned the meaning of 'truth.'
> >Please be aware and check the source of posts having the handle 'A Planet
> >Visitor.' The fraud is actually named scott harrison and lives in England,
>
> *snort*
>
Great retort, dirt. ho ho ho. One of your better ripostes. Of course, we're
dealing with a vast wasteland when you speak of them.
> You thick twat. Inspector ****in' Morse you certainly ain't, old boy.
>
Another great remark, dirt. ho ho ho. Jesus... but you've become lame in
your absence. Can you brush up on your retorts?
> Besides, you have precisely _zero_ property in the handle 'A Planet
> Visitor'. None whatsoever. Learn to live with it.
>
Never claimed I did, sport. I simply pointed out that SANDO is now
posting under the handle that I had been using in this group. And you
then felt the need to go into one of your raging, ruddy red cheeked
defenses of things indefensible.... as usual. What is especially
interesting is that you've done so because you felt I had slighted your
clone.
> >which should cause England pause in judging its mental stability, which
> >I had previously noted as superior to the U.S. Mr harrison is obviously
> >the exception to any such belief.
>
> Ah, but 'Mr Harrison' certainly has managed to show a good deal of
> mental faculty here, PV. He has quite patently embarked upon a series
> of posts designed to elicit an outraged response from yourself. He has
> succeeded in spectacular fashion.
>
ROTFLMAO... He's become the laughing stock (of course he always was),
of this group. If there is any 'outraged' response, sport, it's now coming from
you, in defense of your sock-puppet. Is it really so difficult for you to
recognize YOURSELF?
> > If you recognize the post originates in
> >the U.K.., rest assured it is not from Planet Visitor. Look for NNTP-Posting-
> >Host: scottharrison.demon.co.uk:158.152.112.128. The URL 158.152.112.128,
> >or demon.co.uk provides proof that it is NOT from Planet Visitor. Anyone
> >feeling offended by the posts of the mental retard Scott Harrison, can forward
> >such complaints to ab...@demon.net, noting the URL and post in question.
>
<rest of the 'outraged' response and pathetic appeal to stop picking on dirt's
sock-puppet clipped>
PV
Speak, dirt... speak...
> w00f
Good dog... Now jump through the hoop for your asshole buddy, SANDO.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dirt.e.fuckin.mu...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 06:28:05 GMT, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
> <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
[snippage]
> Shut up you fucking sanctimonious colonist.
Grrrr.
> 'Sando' is no more Sando's real name than 'A Planet Visitor' is the
> real name of the Mad One. Furthermore, 'A Planet Visitor' is no less
> Sando's real name than 'Sando' is. none of us have any property
> whatsoever in our Usenet display names.
Agreed.
> Anyway, I don't believe you for one second. Tell the truth and stop
> being such a nicer. The post was _exceptionally_ funny. I laughed so
> fucking hard that I suffered a major coughing fit - beyond compare, as
> he would say.
As did I. I just felt a little guilty about my chortling. You can tell
the cunt that he owes me a keyboard.
Reason? Some years back, a post was forged using my handle in another
group. I was not as familiar to that group's denizens as PV is to us.
I had to rebuild quite a few bridges and the whole thing was the cause
of considerable annoyance. Therefore I can't help but sympathise with
PV vis a vis use of his handle.
> The fact that PV gets so wound up over petty little things is reason
> to pander to him. This sort or response, QZD, merely encourages his
> childishness.
On the issue of others' use of his handle, I agree with PV; even if the
end result is fucking funny.
> As an aside, I should have thought that an IT professional such as
> yourself would at least know what constitutes a forged post - becuase
> Sando posting as 'A Planet Visitor' patently is not.
Pedantry. Of course I looked at that message's headers and knew exactly
who it was. I don't do that as a rule. Other's don't, either. There
are even some who can't.
I accept the fact that people will do as they will. I may even find
such posts funny but it doesn't mean that I approve of them.
Perhaps I _am_ a sanctimonious, colonial wanker...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote:
> Just because QZD is occasionally rude about you, you threaten to rape and
> murder his companion! It is a little harsh,
Not at all. She burned my fuckin' toast this morning. Felt like taking
a birch rod to her, I did.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped dreary heard-it-all-before shite
<of me>
> No longer capable of rational thought, and depending on
>quaint little phrases such as 'law dictionaries are for wannabees.'
Oh, but they are!
One who wasn't a wannabe wouldn't have relied entirely on such
documents and got himself into such a real _mess_ on subjects as
diverse as 'intent', 'attempt', 'rape', 'mitigation', 'self defense'
[sic] 'defenses' [sic], 'mens rea', 'actus reus', 'defamation' and a
whole host of other legal concepts.
A kiddles lawbook can never hope to compare with a thorough study of
matters legal spanning over four years of graduate and post-graduate
education.
<snipped requisite 'Boswell' reference>
>
>> In fact, I find it so hard to believe that even one so ****ing thick
>> as yourself could fail to appreciate the above that I shall interpret
>> your words as a thinly disguised query as to why my posting of late
>> has been sparse. This is something that I shall be most pleased to
>> comment upon - mainly because it gives me a good opportunity to boast!
>>
>
>We already know why, dirt. It has to do with 'mitigating circumstances.'
>You've been afraid to raise your hand, having had it shot off so
>effectively. Sad little man.
Oh yes, I remember. Mitigation has the effect of lessening mens rea,
doesn't it? LOL.
Why don't you put forth your '15 positive proofs' [sic] and show the
group how very confused you get, PV? Why don't you tell us all how
'diminished responsibility' isn't a defence?
Perhaps, so as to prove all this, you could quote an article called
'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial Defence', but omit the words
after the hyphen, you silly old cunt.
>
>> You see, PV, although (as I have mentioned many times) my chosen
>> specialist subjects are in fact the law of Intellectual Property and
>> general contractual disputes, I am a damn fine Conveyancer - an area
>> of law which allows me to make the most of being a pedantic little
>> twat.
>
>Oh... don't you wish there were such a profession which paid money
>for being a pedantic little twat. You'd rake it in.
Oh, but there is, and I do.
The profession is that of 'Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England
and Wales'
<furious jealousy exhibited by PV snipped>
>>
>> 1- Whatever you or any other may think, Sando is certainly not my
>> 'clone' - we each have quite distinct posting styles and
>> personalities, and I note that even you have finally ceased the
>> nonsensical claim that we are the same person.
>>
>Oh, dear... make no mistake... he's your 'clone.' Quite clearly.
>Everyone recognizes you have formed a bond which can only
>be termed mutually-obsequious. Both of you are fawning,
>clinging, sycophants toward each other. It's obvious that he has
>directed his efforts toward me, because I made you the fool (which
>was always a rather easy task). You now return, angry, outraged,
>hysterical, face flushed ruby red in the defense of him, since I have
>remarked to his post. Jesus, dirt... wake up and smell the coffee...
>everyone can see through your simplistic charade.
Actually, PV, you will find that Sando has turned his attention
towards you because you're so fucking _easy_ to drive to an outraged,
flapping fury.
Any other poster here would have simply ignored his posts until he got
bored and tried something else. You couldn't, and have rewarded his
efforts through several gibbering, fist shaking displays of indignance
- exactly the remuneration he sought.
Therefore, you should expect it to continue
>
>> 2- Your definition of 'fraud' is somewhat flawed. Sando makes no
>> effort whatsoever to truly masquerade as you
>>
>La de da. I think you'll find that he used the SAME handle that I do.
>Whether I have any hold on that handle or not (I do not). His INTENT
>is quite clear. Apparently he is unable to post from his own handle
>anymore. As a 'lawyer' (ho ho ho), you should realize that he truly
>DOES intent to masquerade as A Planet Visitor, since that is the
>handle he posted under. It no longer bothers me, although you think
>it does, and he does as well, which is why he does so, and why you
>now believe you need to express pious outrage that I have dare
>questioned his posts. Clearly, the handle has been damaged beyond
>repair in any google historical sense, and I no longer worry about that
>trivial point. But it certainly doesn't affect ME personally. It's just
>more certain proof that my not providing information regarding my
>true identity is one of the more correct acts I've taken. Morons like
>you and him and others are no better than disgusting meat-flies that
>feed off the flesh of others, without an original thought in your feeble
>minds. Obviously, if SANDO had such an original thought he would
>not feel the need to post under a handle already known to come from
>another.
Bollocks. There is no effort to masquerade as you whatsoever.
His intent, sorry, INTENT, seems to be only to wind you up - since no
one in their right mind will beleive his posts are actually produced
by you - and if they are so devoid of powers of perception, why should
their opinion bother you anyway?
>
>BTW -- You're also a racist. And of course, so is your sock-puppet.
>
>> 3- Sando quite patently posts from the same Internet provider (and
>> indeed the same account) which he did last this time last year.
>> Amazingly, you go on to acknowledge this yourself later on this this
>> particularly ****witted post. Hence, your second paragrah above is
>> complete and utter nonsense on a scale I am unaccustomed to seeing,
>> even from you.
>>
>
>'this' 'this' 'this' 'this' ... you're becoming obsessed, dirt.
Oh dear. How you grasp at the one typo and ignore the fact that point
[3] above shows what utter nonsense you are prone to spouting. Allow
me to make a correction:
3- Sando quite patently posts from the same Internet provider (and
indeed the same account) which he did last this time last year.
Amazingly, you go on to acknowledge this yourself later on in this
particularly fuckwitted post. Hence, your second paragrah above is
complete and utter nonsense on a scale I am unaccustomed to seeing,
even from you.
I take it you have no response to the above now and admit you were
just talking shite.
Spank, spank, spank.
<yada, preaching, amateur psychology and unilateral declarations of
victory snipped>
w00f
Richard Jackson
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> In article <ag49iv$hqd$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, "St.George"
> <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote:
>
> > Just because QZD is occasionally rude about you, you threaten to rape and
> > murder his companion! It is a little harsh,
>
> Not at all. She burned my fuckin' toast this morning. Felt like taking
> a birch rod to her, I did.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
> --
> Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
> "...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
> If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Got to be careful about that. I know of one man who used to beat his
wife, and she used a pair of pinking shears to perform an extreme
circumcision. Being rather jagged, the shears did not leave a clean
enough cut for surgeons to reattach the severed member, and he squats to
piss now.
Ouch!
--
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
rage of denial, claiming all his arguments which rest on his opinion only,
are arguments superior to those which provide proof to the contrary. All
of this simply bearing out the fact that dirt is entering a higher state of
delusion than before. Poor little man, and a spank...spank... spank is
now again in order.
"dirtdog" <dirt.e.fuckin.mu...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:0j0eiu4hql1eg2f6l...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 04:41:13 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped dreary heard-it-all-before shite
>
TRANSLATION: "I will find meaning in my life by ignoring facts."
> <of me>
>
> > No longer capable of rational thought, and depending on
> >quaint little phrases such as 'law dictionaries are for wannabees.'
>
> Oh, but they are!
>
Sure they are, dirt... sure they are. In your delusional life all
things are possible. Pigs can also fly in your dictionary.
> One who wasn't a wannabe wouldn't have relied entirely on such
> documents and got himself into such a real _mess_ on subjects as
> diverse as 'intent', 'attempt', 'rape', 'mitigation', 'self defense'
> [sic] 'defenses' [sic], 'mens rea', 'actus reus', 'defamation' and a
> whole host of other legal concepts.
>
The only 'wannabee' I 'wannabee,' is the one who helps you solve your
mental aberrations. But apparently you are too deep in denial.
> A kiddles lawbook can never hope to compare with a thorough study of
> matters legal spanning over four years of graduate and post-graduate
> education.
>
What a crock. Fourteen or forty years of graduate and post-graduate
education does not provide the right to make up your own definitions,
regarding ANY discipline! Your argument is similar to a physicist
trying to claim that his education provides him the right to claim that
gravity actually causes objects to rise. Contrary to the proof contained
in literature prepared by those have even greater education, training
and experience. Definitions provide the foundation for EVERY discipline.
In legal arguments those definitions are found in cites, statutes and
respected law dictionaries. There is not a legal firm in the U.S. that
does not have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary that provides a basis
for legal definitions. Your argument is just empty hot air, without any
substance. As usual.
> <snipped requisite 'Boswell' reference>
>
You mean the one that shows you are totally clueless?? Of course,
that's the one. And your reason for snipping what it shows is quite clear.
> >
> >> In fact, I find it so hard to believe that even one so ****ing thick
> >> as yourself could fail to appreciate the above that I shall interpret
> >> your words as a thinly disguised query as to why my posting of late
> >> has been sparse. This is something that I shall be most pleased to
> >> comment upon - mainly because it gives me a good opportunity to boast!
> >>
> >
> >We already know why, dirt. It has to do with 'mitigating circumstances.'
> >You've been afraid to raise your hand, having had it shot off so
> >effectively. Sad little man.
>
> Oh yes, I remember. Mitigation has the effect of lessening mens rea,
> doesn't it? LOL.
>
No, A 'mitigating circumstance' can have the effect of reducing the degree
of the offense. This was the argument, sport. So don't try to wiggle out
of it.
> Why don't you put forth your '15 positive proofs' [sic] and show the
> group how very confused you get, PV? Why don't you tell us all how
> 'diminished responsibility' isn't a defence?
>
Why don't YOU try to not avoid the issue? The 16 positive
proofs actually include A Supreme Court cite, a 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals cite, A State of New York Appellate Court
ruling, a State of Vermont Supreme Court ruling, A
Commonwealth of Massachusetts court ruling,
A State of Montana criminal statute, A State of Maine
criminal statute, A State of Vermont Criminal Statute,
A State of Tennessee Criminal Statute, A State of New
York Criminal Statute, a State of Illinois Criminal
Statute, and five different definitions from legal sources,
all citing a 'mitigating circumstance' as having the weight
to change the degree of the offense. And this was just
a cursory examination since I have no law library
to refer to. But of course, they're ALL wrong... and
you're 'right.' Silly boy. Yeah, you 'wannabees' still in
training are quite stupid when it comes to the law.
To save space just one of those 16 examples should suffice --
United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - Rhodes c. Brigano
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
/quote/ "Being under the influence of sudden passion or in a
sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious
provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient
to incite the defendant into using deadly force[,] is a mitigating
circumstance, which reduces what would otherwise be
murder to voluntary manslaughter." /unquote/ And further on
in that ruling -- /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance,
the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.
/unquote/ Actually you would be laughed out of court with your
silly argument that law dictionaries are for 'wannabees.' And
could it be more clear that 'a mitigating circumstance' 'can reduce
murder to volutary manslaughter?' So sayeth the U.S. 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals.
> Perhaps, so as to prove all this, you could quote an article called
> 'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial Defence', but omit the words
> after the hyphen, you silly old cunt.
>
ROTFLMAO... You comes up with some silly argument totally
divorced from the argument of a 'mitigating circumstance.' How
very droll. And how very immaterial to court findings, criminal
statutes and definitions of that term. You started out with 'nothing'
as an argument... and you still have left most of even that 'nothing'
unsaid. Yours is an argument of emptiness within a void. Resting
totally on your 'personal definitions' rather than any factual input.
> >
> >> You see, PV, although (as I have mentioned many times) my chosen
> >> specialist subjects are in fact the law of Intellectual Property and
> >> general contractual disputes, I am a damn fine Conveyancer - an area
> >> of law which allows me to make the most of being a pedantic little
> >> twat.
> >
> >Oh... don't you wish there were such a profession which paid money
> >for being a pedantic little twat. You'd rake it in.
>
> Oh, but there is, and I do.
>
Ummm... your delusion is showing through again.
> The profession is that of 'Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England
> and Wales'
>
Actually I believe the profession is called 'Assistant Toilet Attendant'
in the law firm of 'Dewey, Screwum and How.' I believe that is your
current 'profession.'
> <furious jealousy exhibited by PV snipped>
>
Right.. jealous of not being in a profession that is universally
seen as bottom-dwelling scum-suckers. Get a life. There is
a certainty that you will never get so fat that they cannot find
a coffin big enough to bury you when you die, dirt. They need
only give your corpse an enema and they can bury you in a
shoebox.
> >> 1- Whatever you or any other may think, Sando is certainly not my
> >> 'clone' - we each have quite distinct posting styles and
> >> personalities, and I note that even you have finally ceased the
> >> nonsensical claim that we are the same person.
> >>
> >Oh, dear... make no mistake... he's your 'clone.' Quite clearly.
> >Everyone recognizes you have formed a bond which can only
> >be termed mutually-obsequious. Both of you are fawning,
> >clinging, sycophants toward each other. It's obvious that he has
> >directed his efforts toward me, because I made you the fool (which
> >was always a rather easy task). You now return, angry, outraged,
> >hysterical, face flushed ruby red in the defense of him, since I have
> >remarked to his post. Jesus, dirt... wake up and smell the coffee...
> >everyone can see through your simplistic charade.
>
> Actually, PV, you will find that Sando has turned his attention
> towards you because you're so ****ing _easy_ to drive to an outraged,
> flapping fury.
>
No...actually he has turned his attention toward me for the exact
reason I mentioned. It's rather obvious. He did so because you and
he are asshole buddies, and he recognized you had been totally logically
and morally destroyed by my good self. He then decided to concentrate
on my handle in the only way either of you know... using lies, deception
and obscenity. And you have been frightfully enraged by what your consider
my temerity to respond to his deception, since you rely so frequently on
those same methods yourself. You have hysterically jumped, red-faced,
into the fray in defense of your buddy. There should be no doubt from
anyone that you are the one who has become enraged. I could honestly
not care less about your comments here because everyone knows of
your close association with SANDO, which provides the reasoning for
your neotenic hysteria
> Any other poster here would have simply ignored his posts until he got
> bored and tried something else. You couldn't, and have rewarded his
> efforts through several gibbering, fist shaking displays of indignance
> - exactly the remuneration he sought.
>
> Therefore, you should expect it to continue
>
You think I care that he intends to demonstrate he is your friend, and
he suffers from the same mental affliction that you do? Get real. His
comments here are the best evidence that both you and he are total
imbeciles. It's laughable that you should think I'd be angry when others
make fools of themselves. It only demonstrates what a fool you are
to make such a presumption. And causes me to begin laughing at
you as well. It's a pitiful behavior you've demonstrated here, dirt. And
you should reflect on the reasons for your current post. Because those
reasons speak volumes of what is actually troubling you, son.
> >
> >> 2- Your definition of 'fraud' is somewhat flawed. Sando makes no
> >> effort whatsoever to truly masquerade as you
> >>
> >La de da. I think you'll find that he used the SAME handle that I do.
> >Whether I have any hold on that handle or not (I do not). His INTENT
> >is quite clear. Apparently he is unable to post from his own handle
> >anymore. As a 'lawyer' (ho ho ho), you should realize that he truly
> >DOES intent to masquerade as A Planet Visitor, since that is the
> >handle he posted under. It no longer bothers me, although you think
> >it does, and he does as well, which is why he does so, and why you
> >now believe you need to express pious outrage that I have dare
> >questioned his posts. Clearly, the handle has been damaged beyond
> >repair in any google historical sense, and I no longer worry about that
> >trivial point. But it certainly doesn't affect ME personally. It's just
> >more certain proof that my not providing information regarding my
> >true identity is one of the more correct acts I've taken. Morons like
> >you and him and others are no better than disgusting meat-flies that
> >feed off the flesh of others, without an original thought in your feeble
> >minds. Obviously, if SANDO had such an original thought he would
> >not feel the need to post under a handle already known to come from
> >another.
>
> Bollocks. There is no effort to masquerade as you whatsoever.
ROTFLMAO. You're delusion is taking control again. Of course there
is such an 'effort.' Otherwise, there would not exist his obsessive
need to use the same handle. What a totally moronic statement for
you to make. You will notice that another poster (odagnop), began
posting under the handle A Plenary Verbositor. This was obviously
a play on my handle, but I never accused him of 'masquerading' as
me. It would have been simple for your asshole buddy to simply post
as 'Visitor Planet' or something on that order. As he used the EXACT
handle 'A Planet Visitor' it was an obvious attempt to masquerade in
that handle. Cheee....
> His intent, sorry, INTENT, seems to be only to wind you up - since no
> one in their right mind will beleive his posts are actually produced
> by you - and if they are so devoid of powers of perception, why should
> their opinion bother you anyway?
>
I think that I've been the one to wind YOU up. Certainly it is obvious
that you have become the one incensed that I would even reply to your
asshole buddy's post. It doesn't look good for you,dirt. I might turn
your question right back at you. Why has my remark to his deception
bothered you so much? Why should my opinion bother you? In truth,
neither his nor your posts 'bother' me. Nor do the posts of those lacking
powers of perception 'bother' me. In this public forum I simply note
stupidity and remark on it. Clearly that's why I post to your comments
as frequently as I do. While it is quite certain that my comment to
SANDO's post has bothered you to the point of rage. Calm down, son...
it's only Usenet. And please, reread the meaning of 'protection' (which
is not the opposite of defense), and 'mitigating circumstances.'
> >
> >BTW -- You're also a racist. And of course, so is your sock-puppet.
> >
> >> 3- Sando quite patently posts from the same Internet provider (and
> >> indeed the same account) which he did last this time last year.
> >> Amazingly, you go on to acknowledge this yourself later on this this
> >> particularly ****witted post. Hence, your second paragrah above is
> >> complete and utter nonsense on a scale I am unaccustomed to seeing,
> >> even from you.
> >>
> >
> >'this' 'this' 'this' 'this' ... you're becoming obsessed, dirt.
>
> Oh dear. How you grasp at the one typo and ignore the fact that point
> [3] above shows what utter nonsense you are prone to spouting. Allow
> me to make a correction:
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah... That doesn't make either him or you any less of
an idiot.
> 3- Sando quite patently posts from the same Internet provider (and
> indeed the same account) which he did last this time last year.
> Amazingly, you go on to acknowledge this yourself later on in this
> particularly ****witted post. Hence, your second paragrah above is
> complete and utter nonsense on a scale I am unaccustomed to seeing,
> even from you.
Proving only what I said... that greed generally drives internet providers.
>
> I take it you have no response to the above now and admit you were
> just talking shite.
>
Actually your comment is just as much in error, since at 'this time
last year' SANDO had not posted ANY message to this group. The
first message that appears under that handle in this group is 2 Aug 01.
As a lawyer, you should recognize that precision is paramount.
> Spank, spank, spank.
>
No, very clumsy attempt, dirt... you've never been able to even accomplish
that right. It is spank...spank...spank. And you should know that, since I
have turned your cheeks so crimson, so often.
> <yada, preaching, amateur psychology and unilateral declarations of
> victory snipped>
>
TRANSLATION: "I'm a moron, but I'd better hide that fact."
PV
> w00f
>
>
incubus
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:3D27297C...@lcc.net...
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> In article <ag49iv$hqd$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, "St.George"
> <ama.99@bt＃internet.00com> wrote:
>
> > Just because QZD is occasionally rude about you, you threaten to rape
and
> > murder his companion! It is a little harsh,
>
> Not at all. She burned my fuckin' toast this morning. Felt like taking
> a birch rod to her, I did.
I know the feeling. My wife boiled the water for my tea and scrambled my
eggs. I had the noose prepped and everything. I decided to let her off. God
I am a good person :-)
incubus
Ouch!
my heart bleeds for her but my knob bleeds for him Ouch
--
Teflon
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped fundamentally incorrect nonsense about what effect
'mitigating circumstances' have on the level of an offence>
>To save space just one of those 16 examples should suffice --
>United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - Rhodes c. Brigano
>http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
>/quote/ "Being under the influence of sudden passion or in a
>sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious
>provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient
>to incite the defendant into using deadly force[,] is a mitigating
>circumstance, which reduces what would otherwise be
>murder to voluntary manslaughter." /unquote/ And further on
>in that ruling -- /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance,
>the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.
>/unquote/ Actually you would be laughed out of court with your
>silly argument that law dictionaries are for 'wannabees.' And
>could it be more clear that 'a mitigating circumstance' 'can reduce
>murder to volutary manslaughter?' So sayeth the U.S. 6th Circuit
>Court of Appeals.
>
LOL! Anyone following PV's legal education is urged to visit the URL
above in order to observe why it is _vital_ that a quote from a case
should never be read in isolation from its ratio.
I really do wish that you had actually _read_ this case, PV, since
once again, old bean, I am afraid you have well and truly gone and
shot yourself in the foot - in much the same fashion as when you told
me I knew nothing about the how the Geneva Convention affected
military POWs and proved it by quoting from the part of the GC dealing
with civilial prisoners.
The case is a very interesting one, and one which sets out very
eloquently the massive difficulties which are caused by many US
States' criminal codes when they incorrectly term the 'heat of
passion' defence as a 'mitigating circumstance'.
You see, had you not simply clicked the Google link, gone straight
down to the word 'mitigating', cut and pasted, you would have noticed
that your quotes above do not form ratio, and are merely themselves
quotes from other cases or codes which the court was considering. In
fact, had you _read_ the case, you would have noticed the following
passage, which is certainly decidendi,
"Rhodes is correct that, in many cases, a defendant asserting an
affirmative defense in essence “admits” the elements of the crime and
thereafter seeks to prove an additional set of facts which absolves
guilt. He is also correct that many courts have articulated the theory
of affirmative defenses as defenses in which the accused admits to the
elements of the crime and seeks to avoid guilt
through proof of other relevant facts. E.g., White, 788 F.2d at
344-45. Nonetheless, the characterization of affirmative defenses as
theories of “confession and avoidance” is not constitutionally driven,
and the constitutional principle to be derived from the cases
discussed above does not require the state to carry the burden of
proof on every issue unless it involves a defense that proceeds from a
“confession and avoidance” theory. Rather, statutorily designated
“affirmative” defenses, on which the defendant bears the burden of
proof, may be defenses that also raise a reasonable doubt about the
prosecution’s case. One need look no further than Martin v. Ohio to
find support for this proposition. In Martin, the Court readily
acknowledged that the “affirmative” defense of self-defense may tend
to negate the aggravated murder elements of “purpose” and “prior
calculation and design.” 480 U.S. at 234. The Court made no mention of
the possibility that this fact gave rise to constitutional concerns.
Simply put, the constitutional mandate is that the state may not shift
the burden of proof to the defendant if “an affirmative defense bears
a necessary relationship to an element of the charged offense.” Wood,
790 F.2d at 549. Accordingly, the fact that the Ohio Supreme Court has
chosen to characterize the “mitigating” circumstance of sudden passion
or sudden fit of rage as something akin to an affirmative defense is
constitutionally irrelevant. The constitutional inquiry, rather, is
whether sudden passion or sudden fit of rage bears a necessary
relationship to an element of the offense of murder such that shifting
the burden to the defendant on the issue negates an element of the
crime."
You see, PV - the court treats your 'mitigating circumstance' as a
_defence_. Why? Because it is. A mitigating circumstance is one which
tends to reduce damages or punishment ordered against a defendant even
though his guilt is not in doubt. A factor which actually degrades an
offence to one less serious does not fit this definition.
In fact, I suspect slightly that you might have appreciated your cite
in fact contradicted your position. Again, revisit the URL and compare
it to your purported 'quotes'. That's right, every time the ruling
uses the term 'mitigating circumstance' in respect to the defence of
'heat of passion', it places the term in apostrophes - surely you
noticed it. I wonder why the court did that, PV?
>> Perhaps, so as to prove all this, you could quote an article called
>> 'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial Defence', but omit the words
>> after the hyphen, you silly old cunt.
>>
>ROTFLMAO... You comes up with some silly argument totally
>divorced from the argument of a 'mitigating circumstance.' How
>very droll. And how very immaterial to court findings, criminal
>statutes and definitions of that term.
Indeed, very relevant, however, to either,
1- Your very limited ability to undertand legal reasoning, or
2- Your dishonesty when using quotes
Both of which have been expertly outlined once again above by my good
self.
Hung, once more, by your own petard. Perhaps it's time for another one
of those 16 positive proofs [sic]. How about the one written by a
psychologist? That's always a laugh.
<dreary, dreary ranting by PV obviously blissfully unaware of the
spanking he had just set himself up for snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dirt.e.fuckin.mu...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:04:54 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped fundamentally incorrect nonsense about what effect
> 'mitigating circumstances' have on the level of an offence>
>
by clipping the original separate claims."
> >To save space just one of those 16 examples should suffice --
> >United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - Rhodes c. Brigano
> >http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
> >/quote/ "Being under the influence of sudden passion or in a
> >sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious
> >provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient
> >to incite the defendant into using deadly force[,] is a mitigating
> >circumstance, which reduces what would otherwise be
> >murder to voluntary manslaughter." /unquote/ And further on
> >in that ruling -- /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance,
> >the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.
> >/unquote/ Actually you would be laughed out of court with your
> >silly argument that law dictionaries are for 'wannabees.' And
> >could it be more clear that 'a mitigating circumstance' 'can reduce
> >murder to voluntary manslaughter?' So sayeth the U.S. 6th Circuit
> >Court of Appeals.
> >
>
> LOL! Anyone following PV's legal education is urged to visit the URL
> above in order to observe why it is _vital_ that a quote from a case
> should never be read in isolation from its ratio.
>
Yeah, I would advise everyone to do so.. because it will confirm that
you're an asshole, who can't accept that he's been thoroughly red-bottomed.
> I really do wish that you had actually _read_ this case, PV, since
> once again, old bean, I am afraid you have well and truly gone and
> shot yourself in the foot - in much the same fashion as when you told
> me I knew nothing about the how the Geneva Convention affected
> military POWs and proved it by quoting from the part of the GC dealing
> with civilial prisoners.
>
Yeah, right -- I read it completely. In the most relevant passage to
our dialog the court says /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating
circumstance, the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary
manslaughter. /unquote/ And you say 'that's not a mitigating
circumstance.' What a fucking joke you are. And as I recall in the
GC argument, you said something on the order of the 'war on
crime,' requires that we consider all criminals as 'prisoners of war,
since President Bush declared a 'war on terrorism' meant that we
must treat all terrorists as 'prisoners of war.' I guess we can also say --
1) 'War on terrorism' All terrorists deserve the GC treatment.
2) 'War on crime' All criminals deserve the GC treatment.
3) 'War on drugs' All drug dealers deserve the GC treatment.
4) 'War on poverty' All poor people deserve the GC treatment.
5) 'War on masturbation' All masturbators deserve the GC treatment.
(this protects you dirt)
6) 'War on juveniles' All juveniles deserve the GC treatment.
Amnesty International has actually 'declared' such a war.. see
http://www.amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/juvenile/
7) 'War on the weak' All weaklings deserve the GC treatment. See
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-01.htm
8) 'War on Spam' All Spammers deserve the GC treatment. See
http://www.waronspam.com/
9) 'War on Truth' All telling the truth deserve the GP treatment. See
http://www.mediaisland.org/thewarontruth.html
10) 'War on What' All those asking 'what' deserve the GP treatment.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/opinion/08FRIE.html
That about covers everybody, and you more than once. Happy now?
> The case is a very interesting one, and one which sets out very
> eloquently the massive difficulties which are caused by many US
> States' criminal codes when they incorrectly term the 'heat of
> passion' defence as a 'mitigating circumstance'.
>
Up yours, sport. Eat shit and die. Because the court told you to
do so. When the courts term 'heat of passion' as a 'mitigating
circumstance,' it MEANS 'exactly that.' You can't overrule a court
ruling, dirt. Regardless of that pathological narcissism, and superiority
complex of yours. You'd be laughed out of court if you tried.
> You see, had you not simply clicked the Google link, gone straight
> down to the word 'mitigating', cut and pasted, you would have noticed
> that your quotes above do not form ratio, and are merely themselves
> quotes from other cases or codes which the court was considering. In
> fact, had you _read_ the case, you would have noticed the following
> passage, which is certainly decidendi,
>
ROTFLMAO. Again -- /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance,
the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.
/unquote/ So sayeth the court. Regardless of your bullshit.
Jesus, you're a rather clumsy liar, dirt. Not even able to do that very
well. And a typical scum-sucking under-achiever.
> "Rhodes is correct that, in many cases, a defendant asserting an
> affirmative defense in essence "admits" the elements of the crime and
> thereafter seeks to prove an additional set of facts which absolves
> guilt. He is also correct that many courts have articulated the theory
> of affirmative defenses as defenses in which the accused admits to the
> elements of the crime and seeks to avoid guilt
>
yada, yada, yada... not one word in there of 'mitigating circumstance.'
Why not throw in a few mens reas as well? They always make your
comments seem important, even though you don't understand them.
/quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence
of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. /unquote/
Eat shit and die, dirt.
yada, yada, yada... /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance,
the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.
/unquote/. You're a phony, and you've been proven to be one.
> You see, PV - the court treats your 'mitigating circumstance' as a
> _defence_. Why? Because it is. A mitigating circumstance is one which
> tends to reduce damages or punishment ordered against a defendant even
> though his guilt is not in doubt. A factor which actually degrades an
> offence to one less serious does not fit this definition.
>
Huh??? You bloody fool. /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance,
the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter.
/unquote/. The court treats a 'mitigating circumstance' as a
'mitigating circumstance.' Whatever you wish to attach to 'mitigating
circumstance.' And the court ruled that 'mitigating circumstance' reduces
murder to voluntary manslaughter. End of story. All else is simply bullshit
from you.
> In fact, I suspect slightly that you might have appreciated your cite
> in fact contradicted your position. Again, revisit the URL and compare
> it to your purported 'quotes'. That's right, every time the ruling
> uses the term 'mitigating circumstance' in respect to the defence of
> 'heat of passion', it places the term in apostrophes - surely you
> noticed it. I wonder why the court did that, PV?
>
Surely you recognize that you are again full of shit, dirt. Since the
comment I keep posting OVER and OVER -- /quote/ Such passion
is a mitigating circumstance, the existence of which reduces murder
to voluntary manslaughter. /unquote/ contains NO apostrophes, and
the words mitigating circumstance are NOT placed in apostrophes as
well. You're simply blowing smoke. In all the use of that term it
is only twice that it was placed in apostrophes. While it was
mentioned 13 times.
>
> >> Perhaps, so as to prove all this, you could quote an article called
> >> 'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial Defence', but omit the words
> >> after the hyphen, you silly old cunt.
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO... You comes up with some silly argument totally
> >divorced from the argument of a 'mitigating circumstance.' How
> >very droll. And how very immaterial to court findings, criminal
> >statutes and definitions of that term.
>
> Indeed, very relevant, however, to either,
>
Indeed... TOTALLY irrelevant, since we are discussing PRECISELY the
phrase 'mitigating circumstance' and the effect that those words can have on
the DEGREE of the offense, which you claim can be NONE, while
I, the 6th Circuit court of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, the
A State of New York Appellate Court ruling, a State of Vermont
Supreme Court ruling, A Commonwealth of Massachusetts court ruling,
A State of Montana criminal statute, A State of Maine criminal statute,
A State of Vermont Criminal Statute, A State of Tennessee Criminal
Statute, A State of New York Criminal Statute, a State of Illinois Criminal
Statute, and five different definitions from legal sources, all cite a
'mitigating circumstance' as PRECISELY having the weight to change the
degree of the offense. You simply wish to change it into 'affirmative
defense' which places the burden on the defense. Sorry, sport. That
isn't the way it plays out. A 'mitigating circumstance' is simply that.
Whatever the court determines the statutes deem it to be.
> 1- Your very limited ability to undertand legal reasoning, or
Yeah, right... right along with your limited reading ability.
> 2- Your dishonesty when using quotes
>
Actually, it's your dishonesty in trying to say that the courts 'mean'
different from what they 'say.' The words are CRYSTAL CLEAR, and
only a moron could find otherwise. /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating
circumstance, the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary
manslaughter. /unquote/.
> Both of which have been expertly outlined once again above by my good
> self.
>
When you claim 'expertly' one instantly recognizes that you really
mean 'irony.' Since irony is obviously your strong suit.... and you're
certainly trying hard to express it here.
> Hung, once more, by your own petard. Perhaps it's time for another one
> of those 16 positive proofs [sic]. How about the one written by a
> psychologist? That's always a laugh.
>
I long ago discarded that one, since although it certainly proved my
point it lacked a certain precision which exists within specific court
rulings, criminal statutes, and definitions -- Thus my 16 at present
(there are certainly more -- but 16 should drive a knife in your sick,
sorry heart, since we have the sum total of 'zip' from you that
would prove to the contrary of my argument) --
1) United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals -
Rhodes c. Brigano
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
"Being under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit
of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation
occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite
the defendant into using deadly force[,] is a mitigating
circumstance, which reduces what would otherwise be
murder to voluntary manslaughter."
2) State of Montana Criminal Code 45-5-103
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-103.htm
"It is an affirmative defense that the defendant acted
under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
stress as provided in subsection (1). This defense
constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing
deliberate homicide to mitigated deliberate homicide
and must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance
of the evidence."
Thought you said 'affirmative defense'' cannot be a
'mitigating circumstance'? State of Montana Criminal
Code disputes that view. It says this defense DOES
constitute a mitigating circumstance. Of course,
that's simply a 'play on words' by the court in your
view.
3) Criminal statute of the State of Oregon
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html
"163.118 Manslaughter in the first degree. (1)
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the
first degree when:
(b) It is committed intentionally by a defendant
under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance
as provided in ORS 163.135, which constitutes a
mitigating circumstance reducing the homicide that
would otherwise be murder to manslaughter in the
first degree and need not be proved in any prosecution"
4) Criminal statute of the State of Illinois
http://www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/ch720/ch720act5articles/ch720act5Sub9.htm
720 ILCS 5/9-2)
Sec. 9-2. Second Degree Murder. (a) A person commits
the offense of second degree murder when he commits the
offense of first degree murder as defined in paragraphs (1)
or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 9-1 of this Code and either
of the following mitigating factors are present:
(1) At the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden
and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by
the individual killed or another whom the offender endeavors
to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death
of the individual killed; or
(2) At the time of the killing he believes the circumstances
to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the
killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code,
but his belief is unreasonable.
'Mitigating factors' reduce the degree of the crime.
5) Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Meshach Little
http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/7949.html
"'If any view of the evidence . . . would permit a verdict
of manslaughter rather than murder, a manslaughter
charge should be given.' Commonwealth v. Brooks,
422 Mass. 574, 578 (1996). One of the mitigating
circumstances that would render the crime a voluntary
'manslaughter . . . [is] a killing from a sudden transport
of passion or heat of blood, upon a reasonable
provocation and without malice, or upon sudden combat"
Mitigating circumstances of 'passion or heat of blood,'
reducing murder to manslaughter.
6) -- A State of New York Appellate ruling
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/127opn.pdf
From page 2 --
"Thus, the fact "that [a] homicide was committed under
the influence of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes
a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter
in the first degree" (Penal Law § 125.20[2])."
Note that not only does a 'mitigating circumstance' have
the possibility of 'reducing murder to manslaughter in the
first degree,' that 'extreme emotional disturbance' constitutes
a 'mitigating circumstance.'
7) -- A U.S. Supreme Court Ruling # 99-478 See
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-478/99-478fo3/brief.pdf
Quoting from the middle of that ruling --
"Alternatively, a State might elect to set the greatest
maximum penalty for all persons who commit a
particular offense, while providing for affirmative
defenses (or mitigating factors) to be proved by
the defendant in order to obtain a lesser penalty.
Cf. Patterson v. New York, supra (State may
provide for an affirmative defense of extreme emotional
disturbance that mitigates murder to manslaughter to
be proved by the preponderance of the evidence)."
See again that 'extreme emotional disturbance' which
the New York appellate court found to be a 'mitigating
circumstance' can again mitigate the crime of murder
to the lesser crime of manslaughter.
8) - the State of Tennessee, for one, also considers
EXACTLY that .. See
http://chattanooga.net/~bjpetty/deathlaw.html
Quoting from THAT statute -- "In arriving at
the punishment the jury shall consider, as heretofore
indicated, any mitigating circumstances which shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
....
(2) The murder was committed which the defendant
was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance."
9) A Court opinion of the State of Vermont Supreme
Court. See --
http://www.state.vt.us/atg/april2001%20law%20month.htm
Quoting an excerpt from that opinion --
"The critical factor distinguishing second degree murder
from voluntary manslaughter is not the mental state of
the actor, but the existence of mitigating circumstances."
10) -- The Criminal Statute of the State of Maine, U.S.-
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec203.html
QUOTING from the Criminal Statute --
"The fact that the person causes the death while under
the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought
about by adequate provocation constitutes a mitigating
circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter and
need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under
this subsection; or [1989, c. 505, §1(amd).]"
11) The Penal Code of the State of New York
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=82&a=28
"S 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
....With intent to cause the death of another person, he
causes the death of such person or of a third person
under circumstances which do not constitute murder
because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision
one of section 125.25. The fact that homicide was
committed under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance
reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree
and need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under
this subdivision"
Ummm... 'extreme emotional disturbance' = 'mitigating
circumstance' = reduce murder to manslaughter in the
1st Degree.
12) -- From Black's Law Dictionary --
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES --
"Mitigating circumstances which will reduce degree of
homicide to manslaughter are the commission of the
killing in a sudden heat of passion caused by adequate
legal provocation. (People v. Morris 31 Michigan Appeals
Report 301, 187 North Western Reporter 2d 434, 438.)"
13) A definition from Lawyers.com
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers-com/executable/glossary/defpage.asp?SEQNO=5592
"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE -
"a circumstance in the commission of an act that lessens
the degree of criminal culpability <was convicted of manslaughter
rather than murder because of mitigating circumstances>"
14) A definition from Findlaw.com
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=laws.lp.findlaw.com&topic
=b8/b85f6c1475ce965def1144cca45b5807
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
": a circumstance in the commission of an act that lessens
the degree of criminal culpability Example: was convicted
of manslaughter rather than murder because of mitigating
circumstances"
15) A definition from Law.com
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1267&bold=||||
"Mitigating Circumstances --
n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not
excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of
mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the
prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty
upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots his father
after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at and treated
without love. "Heat of passion" or "diminished capacity" are
forms of such mitigating circumstances."
16) A definition from Lectlaw.com
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m036.htm
"MITIGATING FACTORS - Information about a defendant or
the circumstances of a crime that might tend to lessen
the sentence or the crime with which the person is charged.
MITIGATION - To make less rigorous or penal."
> <dreary, dreary ranting by PV obviously blissfully unaware of the
> spanking he had just set himself up for snipped>
>
Don't be a fool, dirt. You've already dug yourself in so deep.
You only look less competent in legal terms to attempt to
deny Court rulings and clear criminal statutes.
PV
> w00f
>
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
Cue the fucking onslaught...
>
>"dirtdog" <dirt.e.fuckin.mu...@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:dg6hiu4rpmdvrgui5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:04:54 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
<snipped boring opening tirade>
Oh dear.
Do you really believe the nonsense you have just typed?
I don't allege that Taliban prisoners should be treated as POWs
because of your halfwit president's weak, weak rhetoric, I do so
because they were captured during a clear cut, de facto military
operation.
Invasion and bombing campaigns do tend to be classed as acts of war,
you fucking halfwit.
Since you may be slightly confused on the issue, I suggest you read
the (correct) part of the Geneva Convention
www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Read particularly Art 4 and realise why your ineptitude is so acute
that I really don't feel the need to spell it out to you again.
Red faced, PV? Feel like a cunt?
'Eat shit and die'! How I laughed. Like a silly little kid with
nothing left to say.
I wonder why you have chosen to reply to my superb analysis above and
below by repeating the same simple quote which your Google search led
you to within this complex case?
The main basis of this case is the fact that although termed in some
Yank statutes as a 'mitigating circumstance', the doctrine of 'heat of
passion' is anything but, since it serves to degrade the level of an
offence, namely murder. The case, if you actually _read_ it (rather
than thumping the table and hissing 'eat shit and die') expressly
states that this doctrine is effectively an affirmative defence -
agreeing (quite unfortunately for you) with the Ohio Supreme Court.
There is also some quite interesting obiter discussion regarding an
argument advanced by the appellant that it was for the State to prove
that the offence was not committed 'in the heat of passion', rather
than the other wy around. Remember, traditional views on justice state
that a person must be proven guilty, and proving the mens rea of
intent meant disproving the act was done in the 'heat of passion'.
This, however, will probably sail _far_ over your greying pate.
Why not read the quote I generously provided again?
You do offer such brilliant arguments, PV.
The case does indeed use these words - obiter. It then proceeds and
makes in its ratio (look it up) a considered judgement into why the
;heat of passion; doctrine is actually to be treated as a _defence_.
It quite patently display's the court's dislike of the inaccurate term
'mitigating circumstance' which is used in the statute by placing it
in quotes whenever used.
And the best thing of all is that this little gem - which underlines
precisely why your simplistic misunderstanding of the concept of
mitigation is so wrong - is your _own_ cite! What a collossal fuckwit
you are, PV.
Heh.
I think that now is the time to point out to you once again how you
may in future avoid the embarrassment you have again suffered. If you
are going to try to learn about the law, research it thoroughly first.
Read some third party commentary, and do so with careful cross
reference to sources of law. That way, you may in future learn about
that vital piece of caselaw which renders your literal interpretation
of Statutory instruments mistaken.
You may, for example, notice things such as R v Khan, which contained
_vital_ discussion on why rape is impossible to link directly into the
existing statutory framework for attempt. Or, you might pick up on and
read a case like 'Rhodes', which shows that where the law allows, what
would otherwise be a 'mitigating circumstance', can become a defence.
And there you lesson on this subject shall end for the day
None of the above, of course, explains for one moment why you chose to
quote from an article called 'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial
Defence' in your attempt to show that Diminished Responsibility is not
a defence!
What it does underline, however, is the fact that you clearly
reproduced the cite from another source, without first consulting the
primary source - a common mistake made by wannabe intellectuals who
were patently never exposed to further education.
My fuckin' history teacher would have strung me up at _16_ for doing
that!
<snipped some more of PV's positive proofs [sic]>
PV, choose that positive proof [sic] which you consider to be most
persuasive to your argument and I shall be happy to show you why you
are mistaken. However, I'll be fucked if I'm trawling through 16 of
the fuckers just to explain to you why you have misinterpreted/been
dishonest/been a complete illiterate fuckwit each time.
w00f
dirtdog
<dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote:
<snipped superb article>
>It quite patently display's
Aaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhh
CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL
Come Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
Fuck.
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote:
Suck my large one.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>
Translation -- dirt expresses an obscenity, and we ALL know what
that means... he smells his defeat, and like an anger whelp snarls
his fear.
> >
> >"dirtdog" <di...@w00f.w00f.cxm> whined in message
> >news:dg6hiu4rpmdvrgui5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:04:54 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >>
> <snipped boring opening tirade>
>
And again... we already know what THAT translates into, having so often
seen that when lacking an answer, dirt will clip.
The point is, do YOU really believe that President Bush MEANT
we WERE AT WAR, when he stated a 'war on terrorism'? Since
you presumably argued quite strongly that it was EXACTLY what
it meant, I just brought up a few other 'wars' that have been
declared, and those who we must also extend those GC rights to.
> I don't allege that Taliban prisoners should be treated as POWs
> because of your halfwit president's weak, weak rhetoric, I do so
> because they were captured during a clear cut, de facto military
> operation.
>
Ah, but not war. And clearly you argued quite forcefully in respect
to 'being at war' even though Congress had not declared war. You
have a very short memory when it suits your purposes, dirt.
> Invasion and bombing campaigns do tend to be classed as acts of war,
> you ****ing halfwit.
Don't be ridiculous. They can just as easily not be classed as acts
of war, depending on WHO makes such a classification.
>
> Since you may be slightly confused on the issue, I suggest you read
> the (correct) part of the Geneva Convention
>
> www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
>
> Read particularly Art 4 and realise why your ineptitude is so acute
> that I really don't feel the need to spell it out to you again.
>
The idea is, sport, that NEITHER side considered themselves at war.
In fact, there IS only one side, in respect to that which constitutes
a legitimate government. The Taliban was NEVER recognized as
legitimate, nor is terrorism recognized as legitimate. And the other
side, the coalition, never declared war. In point of fact, there IS
no 'war' as a State of War existing between belligerent nations. There
is only the rhetorical 'war on terrorism,' as the rhetorical 'war on those
things I mentioned above.' Who are we at 'war' with NOW? There
is now a 'legitimate' government in Afghanistan (at least recognized
by almost every nation, while the Taliban never gained more than
3 nations on the entire planet that recognized it). Are we at 'war'
with THAT government? I think not, since NEITHER side has claimed
that such exists. In fact, we were NEVER at war in the political
and what is recognized as the geopolitical legal sense.
There is simply not enough substance included in that particular remark
to demonstrate you even know what you're referring to. Actually, it
obvious that your ego prevents you from being red-faced regardless of
how badly you are thrashed, after claiming to be a legal whiz. So I
guess I'll have to settle for that crimson bottom I gave you.
> 'Eat shit and die'! How I laughed. Like a silly little kid with
> nothing left to say.
>
I think it's quite appropriate since you seem to be composed mostly
of shit. As I said, giving you a good enema would permit you to sleep
in a shoebox.
> I wonder why you have chosen to reply to my superb analysis above and
> below by repeating the same simple quote which your Google search led
> you to within this complex case?
>
Is this really the best argument you can muster? How pathetic. I keep
trying to tell you about your pathological narcissism, and you just seem
to ignore me. Let me explain again... I repeat them... and will continue
to repeat them because they show the void that exists in your supposed
legal acumen.
> The main basis of this case is the fact that although termed in some
> Yank statutes as a 'mitigating circumstance', the doctrine of 'heat of
> passion' is anything but, since it serves to degrade the level of an
> offence, namely murder. The case, if you actually _read_ it (rather
> than thumping the table and hissing 'eat shit and die') expressly
> states that this doctrine is effectively an affirmative defence -
> agreeing (quite unfortunately for you) with the Ohio Supreme Court.
>
Sorry, sport. The COURT says it is. All we have otherwise is your
rather immature stamping of your foot, claiming 'it ain't fair.' Again --
/quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence
of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. /unquote/.
You can moan and groan and claim I am thumping the table, while
you're the one acting childish, and a bit oafish... but the WORDS are
crystal clear. Those few words DISTINCTLY identify a 'mitigating
circumstance' and DISTINCTLY state IT reduces murder to voluntary
manslaughter. Which is the reason you've become so hysterical,
since it spells D O O M... for your argument.
> There is also some quite interesting obiter discussion regarding an
> argument advanced by the appellant that it was for the State to prove
> that the offence was not committed 'in the heat of passion', rather
> than the other wy around. Remember, traditional views on justice state
> that a person must be proven guilty, and proving the mens rea of
> intent meant disproving the act was done in the 'heat of passion'.
>
yada, yada, yada... Twist, wiggle, squirm. Need I repeat... /quote/
Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence of which
reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. /unquote/. Let's
run through it sloooowelllly for you.... 'such passion' = 'mitigating
circumstance' = 'existence of' = 'reduces murder to voluntary
manslaughter.' Got it????
> This, however, will probably sail _far_ over your greying pate.
>
I think we know what's sailing where.
> Why not read the quote I generously provided again?
>
Why not read those 15 short words that I generously provided again.
The words which could be deciphered by a 7th grade student?
And try to understand the meaning, please.
That's because I'm so good, dirt. While you seem confused about those
15 words, that I need to keep drumming into your head. If a brilliant
argument can be reduced to 15 words, that can only be called
brilliant. I very seldom find it possible for me to do so, and have often
been accused (often rightly so), of expanding an argument into
vast lengths which could be stated much more concisely. Thus
this argument gives me some pleasure, because it was rather trivial,
and only took those 15 words. Of course, you've attempted to pull
it out into thousands of words to AVOID those 15 words. But there
they are.
> The case does indeed use these words - obiter. It then proceeds and
> makes in its ratio (look it up) a considered judgement into why the
> ;heat of passion; doctrine is actually to be treated as a _defence_.
> It quite patently display's the court's dislike of the inaccurate term
> 'mitigating circumstance' which is used in the statute by placing it
> in quotes whenever used.
>
I think we've been through this before. It did so in 2 out of 13 times.
Hardly representative of any 'distaste' for the term. It did so when
it felt it appropriate in the context, but it certainly agreed that /quote/
Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence of which
reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter./unquote/.
> And the best thing of all is that this little gem - which underlines
> precisely why your simplistic misunderstanding of the concept of
> mitigation is so wrong - is your _own_ cite! What a collossal ****wit
> you are, PV.
Don't be a jerk all your life, dirt. Why don't you just fess up like a
man, instead of that perpetual jerk you've become? Why not simply
say U.S. law is unfamiliar to you? Why not?? Because your ego
prevents you from doing so, in the face of the most devastating
evidence possible to the contrary. It's similar to when you stated
that 'defense' is the OPPOSITE of 'protection,' while the whole world
LAUGHED at that statement. Yet you NEVER admit how stupid you
can possibly look. 15 short words from a court ruling that demonstrate
perfectly that you have your head up your ass, firmly... with the key
inserted and turned. And all your foot stomping will not change those
words one bit.
Is that a self-conscious, embarrassed sort of response? Seems like it.
> I think that now is the time to point out to you once again how you
> may in future avoid the embarrassment you have again suffered. If you
> are going to try to learn about the law, research it thoroughly first.
Ummm... I did, dirt... and that's what brought about your downfall.
The words are there... the court was there... while you're still in la la land.
> Read some third party commentary, and do so with careful cross
> reference to sources of law. That way, you may in future learn about
> that vital piece of caselaw which renders your literal interpretation
> of Statutory instruments mistaken.
>
Just a bunch of nonsense poured on top hoping to cover up those
15 words that spell your doom. /quote/ Such passion is a mitigating
circumstance, the existence of which reduces murder to voluntary
manslaughter. /unquote/. You may twist and wiggle all you wish,
but there they are.
> You may, for example, notice things such as R v Khan, which contained
> _vital_ discussion on why rape is impossible to link directly into the
> existing statutory framework for attempt. Or, you might pick up on and
> read a case like 'Rhodes', which shows that where the law allows, what
> would otherwise be a 'mitigating circumstance', can become a defence.
>
ROTFLMAO.... Apparently the ONLY case you are familiar with is
R v Khan. Seriously, dirt, you need to broaden you view of legal matters.
No one CARES about R v Khan. And I doubt that the words 'mitigating
circumstance' even appears in it (and even if they did, it does NOT negate
the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals). And I don't care, and neither does
the court what your opinion is as to what can BECOME a 'mitigating
circumstance.' The point IS, and always WAS that a 'mitigating
circumstance' CAN reduce the degree of the offence. Whatever you
claim it CAN become.
> And there you lesson on this subject shall end for the day
>
Silly boy... Your response was deeply pathetic, obviously rushed and
relied on insensible arguments, gross abuse of logic and deliberate
misinterpretation. All in all, a typical dirt dialog.
And all of the above does not explain for one moment why you
cannot absorb those 15 words into your hard head, and understand
that the point has been proven, and the case is closed. All appeals
are denied. All else is bullshit. And your obvious attempt to divert from
those 15 undeniable words (which BTW... contained no apostrophes)
is simply your attempt to expatiate your argument hoping to add some
measure of confusion through some copious and meaningless description
which contains a complete lack of evidence, except the evidence of your
intent.
> What it does underline, however, is the fact that you clearly
> reproduced the cite from another source, without first consulting the
> primary source - a common mistake made by wannabe intellectuals who
> were patently never exposed to further education.
>
ROTFLMAO... The site in question here is United States 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals - Rhodes c. Brigano
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
For some strange reason you seem to wish to avoid that. Could it
be because you've been made to look stupid? Of course it could.
> My ****in' history teacher would have strung me up at _16_ for doing
> that!
>
I doubt seriously, given my experience with the breadth of your knowledge,
that you actually ever took a 'history' course. That was one of the
courses left out of your 'classical education.' Else you would have
been familiar with James Boswell, I believe.
> <snipped some more of PV's positive proofs [sic]>
>
We ALL know what THAT translates into, dirt.
> PV, choose that positive proof [sic] which you consider to be most
> persuasive to your argument and I shall be happy to show you why you
> are mistaken. However, I'll be ****ed if I'm trawling through 16 of
> the fuckers just to explain to you why you have misinterpreted/been
> dishonest/been a complete illiterate fuckwit each time.
I already picked one that demolished you. Any of the others would do
likewise.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:3rdkiugvln3itegaf...@4ax.com...
Too late... you're a dickhead
PV
.
>
> w00f
>
>
Richard Jackson
dirtdog wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> Cue the fucking onslaught...
>
> >
< snipped for brevity, and to ask one question>
Dirt, if the Al Qaida and Taliban prisoners in Cuba are POW's by
definition of the Geneva Convention of 1949, isn't it also true that the
US would be within their rights to hold them as POW's under that
Convention until the time there is a treaty signed and a formal
cessation of hostilities? If so, and neither the Taliban or Al Qaida
wish to sign such agreements (or the US for that matter), could they
not remain in interment forever with the benefit of no trial?
--
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
I think that John and doggie have already gone over that. I know that
John believes that they should be treated as POWs and that their
detention could then be on-going. It would be such a simple thing to do
and it would have saved the USA a considerable amount of criticism.
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
message news:jonathan-2C1E7A...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <3D2AD046...@lcc.net>, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net>
> wrote:
>
> > dirtdog wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > > <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cue the fucking onslaught...
> > >
> > > >
> > < snipped for brevity, and to ask one question>
> >
> > Dirt, if the Al Qaida and Taliban prisoners in Cuba are POW's by
> > definition of the Geneva Convention of 1949, isn't it also true that the
> > US would be within their rights to hold them as POW's under that
> > Convention until the time there is a treaty signed and a formal
> > cessation of hostilities? If so, and neither the Taliban or Al Qaida
> > wish to sign such agreements (or the US for that matter), could they
> > not remain in interment forever with the benefit of no trial?
>
> I think that John and doggie have already gone over that. I know that
> John believes that they should be treated as POWs and that their
> detention could then be on-going. It would be such a simple thing to do
> and it would have saved the USA a considerable amount of criticism.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Indeed it would have. But Bush and co seemed determined to snatch defeat
out of the jaws of victory. "We're going to catch that Osama bin Laden,
dead or alive" was another bloody stupid hostage to fortune.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped PV inviting a thorough spanking over the GC again>
>>
>> www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
>>
>> Read particularly Art 4 and realise why your ineptitude is so acute
>> that I really don't feel the need to spell it out to you again.
>>
>The idea is, sport, that NEITHER side considered themselves at war.
>In fact, there IS only one side, in respect to that which constitutes
>a legitimate government. The Taliban was NEVER recognized as
>legitimate, nor is terrorism recognized as legitimate. And the other
>side, the coalition, never declared war. In point of fact, there IS
>no 'war' as a State of War existing between belligerent nations. There
>is only the rhetorical 'war on terrorism,' as the rhetorical 'war on those
>things I mentioned above.' Who are we at 'war' with NOW? There
>is now a 'legitimate' government in Afghanistan (at least recognized
>by almost every nation, while the Taliban never gained more than
>3 nations on the entire planet that recognized it). Are we at 'war'
>with THAT government? I think not, since NEITHER side has claimed
>that such exists. In fact, we were NEVER at war in the political
>and what is recognized as the geopolitical legal sense.
Sometimes I really do wonder.
Surely, someone who, on occasion, uses vey long words indeed cannot be
such an illiterate halfwit. If you didn't express your drivel so
passionately in the face of clear and undisputable evidence to the
contrary, I'd have to assume you were 'trolling'.
Article 2
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace
time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of
the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
recognized by one of them."
<rest snipped, although no less compelling>
Now, PV, look at:
Now, see if you can manage to read the below:
Article 4
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen
into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews,
war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of
services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided
that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they
accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity
card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the
merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the
conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any
other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under
the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the
occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by
reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has
originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the
territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an
unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong
and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a
summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the
present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent
Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern
under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable
treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception
of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where
diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the
neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning
the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the
Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to
perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided
in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which
these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and
consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel
and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present
Convention."
Spank...spank...spank...
Seeing as you like equations, PV, allow me:
Taliban + captured by US = POW
US + POW + failure to abide by GC = War criminal/rogue state
<snipped distinct but no less thorough thraping of PV>
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
Article 118
"Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay
after the cessation of active hostilities"
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Noting there about 'signing' any agreement, Tef.
A defacto cessation of active hostilites will do.
So no, it isn't true.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped distinct spanking of PV now extracted to new thread>
<snipped example of PV's ignorant refusal to _read_ his own cites>
>
>> The main basis of this case is the fact that although termed in some
>> Yank statutes as a 'mitigating circumstance', the doctrine of 'heat of
>> passion' is anything but, since it serves to degrade the level of an
>> offence, namely murder. The case, if you actually _read_ it (rather
>> than thumping the table and hissing 'eat shit and die') expressly
>> states that this doctrine is effectively an affirmative defence -
>> agreeing (quite unfortunately for you) with the Ohio Supreme Court.
>>
>Sorry, sport. The COURT says it is. All we have otherwise is your
>rather immature stamping of your foot, claiming 'it ain't fair.' Again --
>/quote/ Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence
>of which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. /unquote/.
>You can moan and groan and claim I am thumping the table, while
>you're the one acting childish, and a bit oafish... but the WORDS are
>crystal clear. Those few words DISTINCTLY identify a 'mitigating
>circumstance' and DISTINCTLY state IT reduces murder to voluntary
>manslaughter. Which is the reason you've become so hysterical,
>since it spells D O O M... for your argument.
Did you attend thickie lessons?
If I were to post the following:
"Some people would say that PV is exceptionally clever. They are, of
course, wrong and have been fooled into adopting such a stance due to
the fact that their limited intelligence is intimidated by his
nonsensical but very florid gibberish"
You could well extract a quote from my words of:
"PV is exceptionally clever"
This would not be proof that I believe you to be exceptionally clever
Hence, if you read the case, you will find that the court recognises
that the 'heat of passion' doctrine operates as either:
1- An affirmative defence or,
2- A mental element which _precludes_ the requisite mens rea of
'intent' in murder of this nature
Should you wish to read the case (I suggest very slowly, since it may
help you understand), you may begin to undestand it, you may then,
should you wish, raise relevant observations on the main thrust of its
ratio (which is actually concerning a subtly distinct question).
Should you wish to continue as you are regarding your simplistic
reproduction of a cite produced in Rhodes, you may do so in monologue.
<snipped continued inability by PV to admit his layman limitations,
including hilarious dismissal of the ratio of the case he cites as
'yada yada yada'>
>
>> You may, for example, notice things such as R v Khan, which contained
>> _vital_ discussion on why rape is impossible to link directly into the
>> existing statutory framework for attempt. Or, you might pick up on and
>> read a case like 'Rhodes', which shows that where the law allows, what
>> would otherwise be a 'mitigating circumstance', can become a defence.
>>
>
>ROTFLMAO.... Apparently the ONLY case you are familiar with is
>R v Khan. Seriously, dirt, you need to broaden you view of legal matters.
>No one CARES about R v Khan. And I doubt that the words 'mitigating
>circumstance' even appears in it (and even if they did, it does NOT negate
>the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals). And I don't care, and neither does
>the court what your opinion is as to what can BECOME a 'mitigating
>circumstance.' The point IS, and always WAS that a 'mitigating
>circumstance' CAN reduce the degree of the offence. Whatever you
>claim it CAN become.
You know, you're quite right, PV.
R v Khan has nothing to do with defining mitigating circumstances.
It does perfectly underline, however, your shameful inability to
properly understand how the law works.
You read the Criminal Attempts Act literally, without considering the
questions it raises or any difficulty in applying its words to every
offence. You then foolishly claimed that 'attempted rape' was evidence
of how one intends that which one attempts to do.
In continuing to rant about how one can 'intend to rape', and
screaming about how foolish I was to claim otherwise, you ignored a
_vital_ piece of caselaw in which the court managed to evade the
illogical nature of the statute it was bound to respect.
This has been precisely your mistake regarding 'mitigating
circumstances'.
Which is why R V Khan is very relevant indeed.
<content free zone snipped>
>
>> What it does underline, however, is the fact that you clearly
>> reproduced the cite from another source, without first consulting the
>> primary source - a common mistake made by wannabe intellectuals who
>> were patently never exposed to further education.
>>
>
>ROTFLMAO... The site in question here is United States 6th Circuit
>Court of Appeals - Rhodes c. Brigano
>http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
>For some strange reason you seem to wish to avoid that. Could it
>be because you've been made to look stupid? Of course it could.
Eh?
The judges in that case patently have viewed the source of the cites
they put forth.
What has that got to do with it?
<snipped>
Like I said, give me your next best positive proof [sic], and I shall
happily educate your further.
w00f
Richard Jackson
Is Al Qai'da a part of a government, in your opinion? In any event,
there has been no cessation of hostilities on the part of either side.
Using the statement of cessation of activities, since the United States
has not recognized such, and it appears neither Al Qai'da nor the
Taliban are willing to do so, it is entirely possible these prisoners,
even if they were designated POW's could be kept indefinitely.
--
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote:
No, but hostilities haven't yet finished, really. I've heard not even a
unilateral declaration of peace.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote:
> Taliban + captured by US = POW
>
> US + POW + failure to abide by GC = War criminal/rogue state
US + POW + abiding by GC = long-term detention (USA's aim) + little
international condemnation
BTW, the w00f.com domain has been registered. You need to do something
about that.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <idio...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:1l7pius00jgeam64n...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 04:00:11 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped PV inviting a thorough spanking over the GC again>
>
> >>
> >> www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
> >>
> >> Read particularly Art 4 and realise why your ineptitude is so acute
> >> that I really don't feel the need to spell it out to you again.
> >>
> >The idea is, sport, that NEITHER side considered themselves at war.
> >In fact, there IS only one side, in respect to that which constitutes
> >a legitimate government. The Taliban was NEVER recognized as
> >legitimate, nor is terrorism recognized as legitimate. And the other
> >side, the coalition, never declared war. In point of fact, there IS
> >no 'war' as a State of War existing between belligerent nations. There
> >is only the rhetorical 'war on terrorism,' as the rhetorical 'war on those
> >things I mentioned above.' Who are we at 'war' with NOW? There
> >is now a 'legitimate' government in Afghanistan (at least recognized
> >by almost every nation, while the Taliban never gained more than
> >3 nations on the entire planet that recognized it). Are we at 'war'
> >with THAT government? I think not, since NEITHER side has claimed
> >that such exists. In fact, we were NEVER at war in the political
> >and what is recognized as the geopolitical legal sense.
>
> Sometimes I really do wonder.
>
No, you don't, dirt. 'Wonder' implies that you examine and digest thoughts
and ideas. You're simply a hard-headed xenophobe. They come and they
go all the time, from every nationality.
> Surely, someone who, on occasion, uses vey long words indeed cannot be
> such an illiterate halfwit. If you didn't express your drivel so
> passionately in the face of clear and undisputable evidence to the
> contrary, I'd have to assume you were 'trolling'.
>
Apparently long words tend to frighten you. Could it be that 'classical
education' has not provided you the ability to comprehend words
longer than six letters in length?
> Article 2
>
> "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace
> time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war
> or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of
> the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
> recognized by one of them."
>
A 'state of war' (sic) was not recognized by ANY of them. You see it
doesn't say 'none of them.' It says 'one of them.' One of two or more.
No nation, no government, nowhere, has declared a 'state of war.' In
fact there IS only one side which can call itself legitimate, and that
'side' is the ally coalition. The others are simply terrorists... common
criminals... finding safety by slipping from country to country. There is
no 'war' nor is there any recognized 'armed force' of an opposing 'side.'
Because they is no recognized 'opposing side' in the sense of the GC.
In order to qualify for POW, the prisoners have to carry arms openly;
they have to respond to a superior in some hierarchical chain of command
and they have to have some identifiable sign that shows that they're a
member of an armed force. None of the criteria have been satisfied.
We are simply dealing with what could be termed 'unlawful combatants.'
No different than a motley crew of armed drug dealers. But of course,
we've declared a 'war on drugs,' so obviously drug dealers need the
protection of the GC as well, according to you.
Al-Quada (and the Taliban) fail the qualifying requisites of being POW's
because in part Al-Quada (or the Taliban) itself doesn't obey the laws
of war. And one of the prime requirements of the GC is a form of
reciprocity, where if you want to be a lawful combatant, your side - not
you necessarily yourself - but your 'side,' has to generally abide by the
laws of war, and al-Quada members have not done that, nor have any
'leaders' demonstrated they expect their members to do so.
Further, The GC contemplates that the people that are going to be
governed by it have really surrendered -- they're not still fighting.
They've accepted hors de combat status. This does not happen
with the detainees. Witness the revolt at Mazar-e Sharif, the revolt
in Pakistan - and a number of reported physical attacks on guards
if not in restraints, such as a guard who was stabbed in the eye
and the brain. There is no sense of surrender as is presumed a
POW exhibits. Certainly a 'right' to attempt escape still exists if
one is classified as a POW. But there is no 'right' to not accept
the new role of a non-combatant, which a POW is required to
do. The GC is hard to apply to a group that is still avowed as terrorist,
without connection to any legitimate government, who does not accept
status as a POW.
It's an age old prerogative of an adversary in war to detain members of the
opposite side to keep them from returning to the battle. And Al-Quada (and
the Taliban) will come back in and rejoin the fray if we don't incapacitate
them by putting them in conditions which make that as difficult as possible.
Although there is certainly an attempt to glean intelligence, which is not
prohibited under the convention, a major reason for holding them, is simply
to keep them from returning to combat. And a major reason for
holding them tightly, is that we place our own guards in danger the more
loosely we hold them. This in no way implies we treat them inhumanly.
Simply that they themselves do not accept the status of POW's.
Fundamentally, the disqualifying characteristic of al-Quada and of the
Taliban insofar as they were helping al-Quada carry out its operations,
is the failure themselves to abide by the law of war. The fundamental
requirement of the GC is that you be part of a side that itself has committed
to fair fighting. And it's not simply one country, where the U.S. failed
to recognize the Taliban as a government. The United Nations said
the Taliban wasn't the government. Your country said the Taliban
wasn't the government. Rabbani's government was the seated
government of Afghanistan in the U.N. general assembly. This is a very
different case from what the GC anticipates. Since the TRUE government,
if there was a government at all, as recognized by every nation but 3,
agreed with the actions taken.
> <rest snipped, although no less compelling>
>
> Now, PV, look at:
>
> URL:http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/8ec4e051a8621595c12564670032d7ef/f4d150837faf39d94125624b005a9029?OpenDocument
>
> Now, see if you can manage to read the below:
>
> Article 4
>
> "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
> persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen
> into the power of the enemy:
>
> 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
> members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
> forces.
>
There IS only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
GC. Article 3 is the more telling definition since IT defines the most
fundamental conditions which must be met when holding prisoners and
what those prisoners themselves must accept. And IT says --
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any
adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,
birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."
In point of fact, there is very clear evidence that those 'detainees' have
NOT 'laid down their arms,' in the sense that they consider themselves to
no longer be combatants, or 'out of fight.' Further, whether they are
defined as POW's or not, the conditions required for those type prisoners
have all been met.
In addition, I believe they were taken to Cuba for a very specific legal
reason . I think the government knew full well the legal implications
behind such a movement. It has some positive legal consequences
for the U.S. Government. Because a 1950 Supreme Court decision
in summary seems to hold that habeas corpus is available to U.S.
citizens held by U.S. authority anywhere in the world or to aliens
held by U.S. authorities in the United States. These aliens are
neither U.S. citizens nor are they being held in the United States.
I believe this is the position that the U.S. will argue in a case now
before a federal appeals court brought as a challenge to the detention
of those 600 or so being held in Cuba.
> 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
> including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
> Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
> even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
> volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
> the following conditions:
>
There is only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
GC. And it has declared war on no other party.
> (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
> subordinates;
>
> (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
> distance;
>
> (c) That of carrying arms openly;
>
> (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
> and customs of war.
>
ROTFLMAO. If you believe all of these conditions were met by those
detainees, you live in la la land.
> 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
> government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
>
They are not 'members of regular armed forces.' Regular armed forces
implies a force of a recognized government. Obviously, the U.N. itself
did not recognize the Taliban or Al-Quada.
> 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
> members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews,
> war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of
> services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided
> that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they
> accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity
> card similar to the annexed model.
>
ROTFLMAO. The Al-Quada war correspondents!
> 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the
> merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the
> conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any
> other provisions of international law.
>
ROTFLMAO. The Al-Quada aircrew members!!
> 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
> enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
> without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
> provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
> war.
>
Ummm... they don't respect the laws and customs of war. Terrorists
respect NO law.
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under
> the present Convention:
>
> 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the
> occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by
> reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has
> originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the
> territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an
> unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong
> and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a
> summons made to them with a view to internment.
>
ROTFLMAO. There is no 'occupied' country.
> 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the
> present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent
> Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern
> under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable
> treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception
> of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where
> diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the
> neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning
> the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the
> Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to
> perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided
> in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which
> these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and
> consular usage and treaties.
>
ROTFLMAO. Totally inappicable. Just filling up space here.
> C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel
> and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present
> Convention."
>
ROTFLMAO. See above.
>
> Spank...spank...spank...
>
ROTFLMAO yet again. You can be deliciously stupid at some moments.
It seems that your 'original' ideas are to quote long passages which prove
you know nothing about what you're trying to say, and then find
it necessary to even copy the insult which has been heaped on you so
deservedly, and so often, by my good self.
> Seeing as you like equations, PV, allow me:
>
> Taliban + captured by US = POW
>
ROTFLMAO. Make no mistake about it dirt, the U.S. is out to dominate
the world through our military might... be afraid... be very afraid.
> US + POW + failure to abide by GC = War criminal/rogue state
>
Simply another piece of crap, but let me provide the real equation here
dirtdog + his idiot rote clip of inapplicable articles + his hate for the U.S. =
One huge fuckwit.
> <snipped distinct but no less thorough thraping of PV>
>
> w00f
>
You are completely out of your depth in discussions of the legal meanings
contained in the GC, dirt. It's appalling how you believe that by simply rote
repeating the content you have proved some point. Of course, the words
are as you've written, since you've just mechanically copied them without the
understanding that interpretation of those words lies beyond your legal
competence.
What you fail to realize is that the Taliban lost any credibility of a 'legitimate
government,' as they did not abide by the conventions that their supposedly
'legitimate government' was bound to, such as --
The Convention on the Political Rights of Women -- Joining on 16 Nov 66.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women -- Signed 14 Aug 80.
The International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights -- Signed 24 Jan 83.
The Convention Against Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment -- Signed 1 Apr 87.
PV
Oh, BTW... a REAL.... spank...spank...spank.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message news:jv9piukqgsduopea1...@4ax.com...
> If I were to post the following:
>
> "Some people would say that PV is exceptionally clever. They are, of
> course, wrong and have been fooled into adopting such a stance due to
> the fact that their limited intelligence is intimidated by his
> nonsensical but very florid gibberish"
>
> You could well extract a quote from my words of:
>
> "PV is exceptionally clever"
>
> This would not be proof that I believe you to be exceptionally clever
>
> Hence, if you read the case, you will find that the court recognises
> that the 'heat of passion' doctrine operates as either:
>
Oh, bull shit. The meaning is quite clear... despite all your wiggling.
The sentence stands ALONE, and makes the clear identification it
means to make. Since YOUR example left out 'Some people would
say that...' it is obviously out of context. While the quote I provide is
the general thrust of the entire ruling and states a clear legal fact
under that statute. In fact, it begins the entire paragraph that is the
heart of the ruling. The ENTIRE paragraph is --
"Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence of which
reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. It is not, however, an
element of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. If the defendant fails
to establish such passion by a preponderance, the state must still
prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of an
offense before you can find the defendant guilty of that offense."
There are no apostrophes, and no conditions attached to the clear
statement that the existence of a 'mitigating circumstance' can
reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. Clearly 'passion' is
a mitigating circumstance, whether it is seen by you as a defense
or whatever. The words are very clear as to what a 'mitigating
circumstance' IS... it IS 'such passion.' And what it does is
reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter IF it exists.
> 1- An affirmative defence or,
>
yada, yada, yada..
> 2- A mental element which _precludes_ the requisite mens rea of
> 'intent' in murder of this nature
>
yada, yada, yada... simply more squealing and squawking. I was
wrong before, since you obviously do speak more than one language,
dirt. You're able to whine with more different words and in more varied
ways than just about anyone here. And mens rea has become the
word we look for when we expect to find you whining.
> Should you wish to read the case (I suggest very slowly, since it may
> help you understand), you may begin to undestand it, you may then,
> should you wish, raise relevant observations on the main thrust of its
> ratio (which is actually concerning a subtly distinct question).
> Should you wish to continue as you are regarding your simplistic
> reproduction of a cite produced in Rhodes, you may do so in monologue.
>
ROTFLMAO. Just more of that 'second language' at work. Brilliant in
its emptiness of ideas, yet filled with total nonsense at the same moment.
> <snipped continued inability by PV to admit his layman limitations,
> including hilarious dismissal of the ratio of the case he cites as
> 'yada yada yada'>
>
Repeating... yada, yada, yada...
>
> >
> >> You may, for example, notice things such as R v Khan, which contained
> >> _vital_ discussion on why rape is impossible to link directly into the
> >> existing statutory framework for attempt. Or, you might pick up on and
> >> read a case like 'Rhodes', which shows that where the law allows, what
> >> would otherwise be a 'mitigating circumstance', can become a defence.
> >>
> >
> >ROTFLMAO.... Apparently the ONLY case you are familiar with is
> >R v Khan. Seriously, dirt, you need to broaden you view of legal matters.
> >No one CARES about R v Khan. And I doubt that the words 'mitigating
> >circumstance' even appears in it (and even if they did, it does NOT negate
> >the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals). And I don't care, and neither does
> >the court what your opinion is as to what can BECOME a 'mitigating
> >circumstance.' The point IS, and always WAS that a 'mitigating
> >circumstance' CAN reduce the degree of the offence. Whatever you
> >claim it CAN become.
>
> You know, you're quite right, PV.
>
I've always been right... you're just finally coming around to realizing and
now admitting that fact.
> R v Khan has nothing to do with defining mitigating circumstances.
> It does perfectly underline, however, your shameful inability to
> properly understand how the law works.
>
Sure, dirt. What is shameful is your attempt to twist the clear
meaning of the law. Jerk.
> You read the Criminal Attempts Act literally, without considering the
> questions it raises or any difficulty in applying its words to every
> offence. You then foolishly claimed that 'attempted rape' was evidence
> of how one intends that which one attempts to do.
>
Ummm... do I detect another attempt by you to 'change the subject'
because this one has become too hot for you to handle. Apparently you
find you can obfuscate more effectively by changing subjects when
that happens? Perhaps you'd like to explain your claim that Russia
would take military action against the U.S. in its operations in Afghanistan,
as you predicted, since you wish to change the subject?
> In continuing to rant about how one can 'intend to rape', and
> screaming about how foolish I was to claim otherwise, you ignored a
> _vital_ piece of caselaw in which the court managed to evade the
> illogical nature of the statute it was bound to respect.
>
See above...
> This has been precisely your mistake regarding 'mitigating
> circumstances'.
>
No, dirt... YOUR mistake was ever entering a very benign claim with
your pompous, pathological narcissism, trying to look 'clever' and
ending up with egg on your face.
> Which is why R V Khan is very relevant indeed.
>
Sure it is.. and so is the START II program protocol. Moron.
> <content free zone snipped>
>
> >
> >> What it does underline, however, is the fact that you clearly
> >> reproduced the cite from another source, without first consulting the
> >> primary source - a common mistake made by wannabe intellectuals who
> >> were patently never exposed to further education.
> >>
> >
> >ROTFLMAO... The site in question here is United States 6th Circuit
> >Court of Appeals - Rhodes c. Brigano
> >http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
> >For some strange reason you seem to wish to avoid that. Could it
> >be because you've been made to look stupid? Of course it could.
>
> Eh?
>
Eh, indeed.
> The judges in that case patently have viewed the source of the cites
> they put forth.
>
> What has that got to do with it?
>
Umm /quote/Such passion is a mitigating circumstance, the existence of
which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter./unquote/ That's what
it has to do with it.
> <snipped>
>
> Like I said, give me your next best positive proof [sic], and I shall
> happily educate your further.
>
TRANSLATION: "I can't handle this one anymore, and wish to find another
I can lie about, to try and redeem even a little bit of the illusion of dignity
I presumed falsely that I had." Here they are, dirt -- Have a ball, while
you must admit defeat on #1, which simply proves my argument.
1) United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals -
Rhodes c. Brigano
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
> w00f
>
A Scientist asks -- "Why does it work?"
An Engineer asks -- "How does it work?"
An Accountant asks -- "How much does it cost?"
A Lawyer asks -- "Do you want fries with that order."
incubus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:fdtW8.216317$db.31...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message
news:rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >
> > Cue the ****ing onslaught...
> >
> Translation -- dirt expresses an obscenity, and we ALL know what
> that means... he smells his defeat, and like an anger whelp snarls
> his fear.
He seems to like Desi. let's hope he doesn't pee up Desi's leg :-)
incubus
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 04:00:11 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.w00f.w00f.com> wrote in message
news:rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:03:34 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped distinct spanking of PV now extracted to new thread>
>
> <snipped example of PV's ignorant refusal to _read_ his own cites>
<snip>
Oooh dirtdog. you are such a bitch <pun intended>
your fingers keep typing and typing and yet despite the practice you keep
producing gibberish. Perhaps if you stop typing then your brain may start
working.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: false conviction leading to execution
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:20:40 +0000
>
>Le Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:10:50 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a écrit :
>
>
>>> > Cue the ****ing onslaught...
>
>>> Translation -- dirt expresses an obscenity, and we ALL know what
>>> that means... he smells his defeat, and like an anger whelp snarls
>>> his fear.
>
>> He seems to like Desi. let's hope he doesn't pee up Desi's leg :-)
>
>You're new to this 'insult' lark, aren't you ..?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: false conviction leading to execution
>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:20:40 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 17
>Message-ID: <slrnaitbbn.r3r.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <1025806430.28853....@news.demon.co.uk>
><QJ7V8.160840$db.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><9p1ciuobbb8b272jh...@4ax.com>
><JxuV8.180576$db.25...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><0j0eiu4hql1eg2f6l...@4ax.com>
><G3IV8.192592$db.27...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><dg6hiu4rpmdvrgui5...@4ax.com>
><qa8W8.209340$db.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><rt7kiukgituqukavv...@4ax.com>
><fdtW8.216317$db.31...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><7OnX8.3092$Ro6.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1026469514 24210332 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
You fucking muppet.
"or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of
the High Contracting Parties"
Spank..spank..spank...
<paragraph of nonsensical rhetoric snipped>
>
>Al-Quada (and the Taliban) fail the qualifying requisites of being POW's
Go on. Tell me that apostrophe was a typo, greengrocer boy.
>because in part Al-Quada (or the Taliban) itself doesn't obey the laws
>of war. And one of the prime requirements of the GC is a form of
>reciprocity, where if you want to be a lawful combatant, your side - not
>you necessarily yourself - but your 'side,' has to generally abide by the
>laws of war, and al-Quada members have not done that, nor have any
>'leaders' demonstrated they expect their members to do so.
Care to produce a cite to back that up, PV? It doesn't appear to say
anything of the sort in the GC.
What you are saying, of course, is that if one party to the conflict
has behaved in a manner which you find distasteful, you believe that
it excuses the US breaking international law to satisfy its
indignance. It, of course, doe not. By refusing to treat the Taliban
POWs with regard for the GC, the US becomes every bit the perpetrator
of war crimes. The US does not obey the 'laws of war' [sic].
>
>Further, The GC contemplates that the people that are going to be
>governed by it have really surrendered -- they're not still fighting.
>They've accepted hors de combat status. This does not happen
>with the detainees. Witness the revolt at Mazar-e Sharif, the revolt
>in Pakistan - and a number of reported physical attacks on guards
>if not in restraints, such as a guard who was stabbed in the eye
>and the brain. There is no sense of surrender as is presumed a
>POW exhibits. Certainly a 'right' to attempt escape still exists if
>one is classified as a POW. But there is no 'right' to not accept
>the new role of a non-combatant, which a POW is required to
>do. The GC is hard to apply to a group that is still avowed as terrorist,
>without connection to any legitimate government, who does not accept
>status as a POW.
Cite please. Which article is that rule set down in?
Making things up to hide your spanking is most unseemly.
>
>It's an age old prerogative of an adversary in war to detain members of the
>opposite side to keep them from returning to the battle. And Al-Quada (and
>the Taliban) will come back in and rejoin the fray if we don't incapacitate
>them by putting them in conditions which make that as difficult as possible.
>Although there is certainly an attempt to glean intelligence, which is not
>prohibited under the convention, a major reason for holding them, is simply
>to keep them from returning to combat. And a major reason for
>holding them tightly, is that we place our own guards in danger the more
>loosely we hold them. This in no way implies we treat them inhumanly.
>Simply that they themselves do not accept the status of POW's.
>
>Fundamentally, the disqualifying characteristic of al-Quada and of the
>Taliban insofar as they were helping al-Quada carry out its operations,
>is the failure themselves to abide by the law of war. The fundamental
>requirement of the GC is that you be part of a side that itself has committed
>to fair fighting. And it's not simply one country, where the U.S. failed
>to recognize the Taliban as a government. The United Nations said
>the Taliban wasn't the government. Your country said the Taliban
>wasn't the government. Rabbani's government was the seated
>government of Afghanistan in the U.N. general assembly. This is a very
>different case from what the GC anticipates. Since the TRUE government,
>if there was a government at all, as recognized by every nation but 3,
>agreed with the actions taken.
So all that needs to be done to negate a nation's responsibility to
abide by the GC is to refuse to acknowledge its foe as 'legitimate'?
Which GC article says that, PV?
The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, PV. That is a fact.
Sorry if it doesn't quite fit in with the way you want things to be,
but that's the way things were.
>
>> <rest snipped, although no less compelling>
>>
>> Now, PV, look at:
>>
>> URL:http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/8ec4e051a8621595c12564670032d7ef/f4d150837faf39d94125624b005a9029?OpenDocument
>>
>> Now, see if you can manage to read the below:
>>
>> Article 4
>>
>> "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
>> persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen
>> into the power of the enemy:
>>
>> 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
>> members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
>> forces.
>>
>There IS only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
>GC. Article 3 is the more telling definition since IT defines the most
>fundamental conditions which must be met when holding prisoners and
>what those prisoners themselves must accept. And IT says --
>
>"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
>of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
>hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
>shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any
>adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,
>birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."
LOL!
Proving precisely what, other than that I am quite correct, and hat
you are very wrong?
" Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention"
^^^^^^^
You do so love destroying your own argument with your careless cites.
<absolute fucking _nonsense_ in which PV claims that POWs in Cuba did
not fit this definition snipped>
>
>> 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
>> including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
>> Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
>> even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
>> volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
>> the following conditions:
>>
>There is only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
>GC. And it has declared war on no other party.
>
>> (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
>> subordinates;
>>
>> (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
>> distance;
>>
>> (c) That of carrying arms openly;
>>
>> (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
>> and customs of war.
>>
>ROTFLMAO. If you believe all of these conditions were met by those
>detainees, you live in la la land.
Which of these conditions were _not_ met by Taliaban fighers, you
fuckwit?
>
>> 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
>> government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
>>
>They are not 'members of regular armed forces.' Regular armed forces
>implies a force of a recognized government. Obviously, the U.N. itself
>did not recognize the Taliban or Al-Quada.
No it fucking doesn't, you plonker. I should be most interested to see
on what grounds you base that nonsensical assertion.
<increasingly immature refusal to accept the clear fact that both
al-Quada and Taliban fighers meet the requirements of Article 4
snipped>
What causes you to believe that you have administered a spanking to
anything other than your own wrinkled batty?
Do you really believe that, or is this another case of hilarious
'continue talking shit when proven completely wrong' trolling?
I wonder where in the GC it says that failure to abide by one treaty
negates the responsibility of others to comply with their obligations
under others.
The four treaties cited most fuckwittedly by yourself above have
precisely sod all to do with the Geneva Convention - which the POWs
taken in Afghanistan were quite patently protected by (see extensive
and learned discussion by me previously in this thread).
However, using your logic, the next country against which the US
conducts a military campaign will have every justification in _not_
abiding by their oligations under the GC, given the breaches by the US
not only of that treaty itself, but also of the ICCPR (cited
brainlessly above).
w00f
Richard Jackson
The last time I checked Afghanistan, in the form of the Taliban, was not
a signing party to the Geneva convention, so they are not a "High
Contracting Party."
Not that that makes any difference. The Treaty binds any nation which
signed it despite the fact that their opponent did not.
> <paragraph of nonsensical rhetoric snipped>
>
> >
> >Al-Quada (and the Taliban) fail the qualifying requisites of being POW's
>
> Go on. Tell me that apostrophe was a typo, greengrocer boy.
>
> >because in part Al-Quada (or the Taliban) itself doesn't obey the laws
> >of war. And one of the prime requirements of the GC is a form of
> >reciprocity, where if you want to be a lawful combatant, your side - not
> >you necessarily yourself - but your 'side,' has to generally abide by the
> >laws of war, and al-Quada members have not done that, nor have any
> >'leaders' demonstrated they expect their members to do so.
>
> Care to produce a cite to back that up, PV? It doesn't appear to say
> anything of the sort in the GC.
>
> What you are saying, of course, is that if one party to the conflict
> has behaved in a manner which you find distasteful, you believe that
> it excuses the US breaking international law to satisfy its
> indignance. It, of course, doe not. By refusing to treat the Taliban
> POWs with regard for the GC, the US becomes every bit the perpetrator
> of war crimes. The US does not obey the 'laws of war' [sic].
The taliban, I agree with. Al Qai'da, which I noticed you carefully did
not mention, are another question all together. The problem is, who is
Taliban and who is Al Qai'da. The lines are sort of blurred there.
>
> >
> >Further, The GC contemplates that the people that are going to be
> >governed by it have really surrendered -- they're not still fighting.
> >They've accepted hors de combat status. This does not happen
> >with the detainees. Witness the revolt at Mazar-e Sharif, the revolt
> >in Pakistan - and a number of reported physical attacks on guards
> >if not in restraints, such as a guard who was stabbed in the eye
> >and the brain. There is no sense of surrender as is presumed a
> >POW exhibits. Certainly a 'right' to attempt escape still exists if
> >one is classified as a POW. But there is no 'right' to not accept
> >the new role of a non-combatant, which a POW is required to
> >do. The GC is hard to apply to a group that is still avowed as terrorist,
> >without connection to any legitimate government, who does not accept
> >status as a POW.
>
> Cite please. Which article is that rule set down in?
>
> Making things up to hide your spanking is most unseemly.
What IS allowable under the GC is punishment of a prisoner for criminal
conduct. Attacking a guard is criminal conduct under the Convention if
the prisoners were given POW status.
The Taliban were a government only recognized by Pakistan. They were
not recognized by the rest of the World.
Not all did. It has not been proven that Al Qai'da fought as militia
for the taliban, or the Taliban, in the end, fought with Al Qai'da.
>
> >
> >> 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
> >> including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
> >> Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
> >> even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
> >> volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
> >> the following conditions:
> >>
> >There is only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
> >GC. And it has declared war on no other party.
> >
> >> (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
> >> subordinates;
> >>
> >> (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
> >> distance;
> >>
> >> (c) That of carrying arms openly;
> >>
> >> (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
> >> and customs of war.
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO. If you believe all of these conditions were met by those
> >detainees, you live in la la land.
>
> Which of these conditions were _not_ met by Taliaban fighers, you
> fuckwit?
"Conducting their operations in accordance with the rules and customs of
war." No declaration of war from the Taliban or Al Qai'da, an attack on
purely civilian target without due warning or such declaration.
Dirt, did the UK treat IRA prisoners arrested as POW's? If they did
not, why not? The IRA, after all, meets many of the same requirements
as the Taliban and Al Qai'da under your interpretation of the GC and
committed similar terrorist acts against the UK.
Oh yes. You Brits always maintained that they were terrorist, not
soldiers, right?
--
Teflon
dirtdog
wrote:
<snip of PV's nonsense, my wisdom and some pertinent comments from
Teflon which PV should take note of by way of example as to how well
made comments go much, much further than frantic gibbering>
>
>Dirt, did the UK treat IRA prisoners arrested as POW's? If they did
>not, why not? The IRA, after all, meets many of the same requirements
>as the Taliban and Al Qai'da under your interpretation of the GC and
>committed similar terrorist acts against the UK.
>
>Oh yes. You Brits always maintained that they were terrorist, not
>soldiers, right?
Erm, Tef, you will not find me for one moment claiming that the UK
government did not treat IRA prisoners abysmally. On many occasions,
our treatment of them _was_ in breach of International law, most
notably, the ECHR. Furthermore, subsequent governments reacted with
similar indignance at the suggestion they should be accountable as the
Yank administration does today, especially regarding the findings of
Ireland v United Kingdom, which generated a surge of opinion that the
UK should withdraw from the entire ECHR because some 'pansy Europeans'
had ruled we had no right to kidnap and torture paddies.
Such behaviour by my country is disgraceful, and I condemn it
abolutely. In truth, policies such as the 'five techniques' simply
exacerbated the problems faced over Northern Ireland, and set more
Republican hearts and minds behind the IRA
I have no problem with admitting when my country is in the wrong. PV,
on the other hand, does, and that is what causes him to become trapped
into illogical arguments such as those in this thread.
Should you wish to put forth an argument, Teflon, that IRA prisoners
fall under the definition of those protected by the GC, I shall be
most interested to read it.
w00f
Richard Jackson
I see some similarities there. Taken from the IRA viewpoint, they were
soldiers fighting to liberate their nation from a foreign invader.
Although there was no declared war, as is the case in Afghanistan there
were hostilities. Unlike Afghanistan, there has been a formal cessation
of hostilities (more or less) in Ulster.
It seems to me there are similarities between IRA fighters taken in that
struggle and Taliban and Al Qai'da taken in this one, yet I seldom
heard anyone in the UK propose the IRA be treated as POW's under the
GC. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.
--
Teflon
Richard Jackson
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> Le Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:31:48 -0400, Richard Jackson <ri...@lcc.net> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Should you wish to put forth an argument, Teflon, that IRA prisoners
> >> fall under the definition of those protected by the GC, I shall be
> >> most interested to read it.
>
> > I see some similarities there. Taken from the IRA viewpoint, they were
> > soldiers fighting to liberate their nation from a foreign invader.
> > Although there was no declared war, as is the case in Afghanistan there
> > were hostilities. Unlike Afghanistan, there has been a formal cessation
> > of hostilities (more or less) in Ulster.
> >
> > It seems to me there are similarities between IRA fighters taken in that
> > struggle and Taliban and Al Qai'da taken in this one, yet I seldom
> > heard anyone in the UK propose the IRA be treated as POW's under the
> > GC. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.
>
> Either John or dirt will correct me if I'm wrong, Richard, but I seem
> to recall that the Maze (the name of the prison where they were kept)
> prisoners _were_ accorded political status at one time ...
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
That is not the same as POW status, which forbids placing POWs in
prisons with criminals.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:3D308235...@lcc.net...
--
Teflon
They never asked for POW status, they asked for political prisoner status
which wasn't formally ever given to them. However they were kept separate
from other prisoners whom I won't distinguish as
criminals as I consider the IRA 'soldiers' to be criminals of the worst
type. The same goes for the Ulster paras who were treated similarly
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.sp...@w00f.cxm> wrote in message news:5h20juct1t9153in2...@4ax.com...
Hysteria rules dirt's argument yet again.
> "or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of
> the High Contracting Parties"
>
> Spank..spank..spank...
>
ROTFLMAO. Al-Quada was not a 'High Contracting Party.' Nor did you
finish the qualifying conclusion of that sentence 'even if the state of war
is not recognized by one of them.' In fact, for a 'state of war' to exist
SOME 'High Contracting Party' must DECLARE war. There is nothing
of the sort in existence. Who recognized (other than you and some
others in their PERSONAL opinions) that the Taliban was the 'legitimate
government' in Afghanistan? Certainly not the U.N. Who in effect,
determines who is a 'legitimate government.'
> <paragraph of nonsensical rhetoric snipped>
Well, we know what that translates into. The inability to even respond
with the usual expletive. Showing that my argument was even more
logically devastating than usual.
> >
> >Al-Quada (and the Taliban) fail the qualifying requisites of being POW's
>
> Go on. Tell me that apostrophe was a typo, greengrocer boy.
Great counterargument, dirt. Totally meaningless from the 'Andy Capp'
moron. See
http://www.creators.com/comics_show.cfm?comicname=cap
> >because in part Al-Quada (or the Taliban) itself doesn't obey the laws
> >of war. And one of the prime requirements of the GC is a form of
> >reciprocity, where if you want to be a lawful combatant, your side - not
> >you necessarily yourself - but your 'side,' has to generally abide by the
> >laws of war, and al-Quada members have not done that, nor have any
> >'leaders' demonstrated they expect their members to do so.
>
> Care to produce a cite to back that up, PV? It doesn't appear to say
> anything of the sort in the GC.
>
Not necessary to do. The fact is substantiated by the WTC attack.
Are you claiming that attack followed 'the laws of war'? Are you
claiming the Taliban and Al-Quada DO 'follow the laws of war'?
Can you provide a cite to back 'that' up?
> What you are saying, of course, is that if one party to the conflict
> has behaved in a manner which you find distasteful, you believe that
> it excuses the US breaking international law to satisfy its
> indignance. It, of course, doe not. By refusing to treat the Taliban
> POWs with regard for the GC, the US becomes every bit the perpetrator
> of war crimes. The US does not obey the 'laws of war' [sic].
>
There was no 'breaking of international law,' sport. This is the
crux of the argument. As usual you expect to base your conclusions
on a false premise to begin with. Demonstrating only that you're
obviously blowing smoke. I am not 'excusing' anything. I am
demonstrating that there is nothing to 'excuse' to begin with.
You are presuming I accept the validity of your silly argument that
violations occurred as the basis for this dialog. Thus you have
demonstrated you don't understand what the basic premise
of the dialog is even about. Prisoners taken in conflicts should
by reasons of humanity be afforded humane treatment... this is
being done in respect to those held in Cuba, consistent with
reasonable protection for those who hold those prisoners. What
is the argument here is are those 'detainees' necessarily covered
under the GC? They are not, as the GC was originally conceived.
> >Further, The GC contemplates that the people that are going to be
> >governed by it have really surrendered -- they're not still fighting.
> >They've accepted hors de combat status. This does not happen
> >with the detainees. Witness the revolt at Mazar-e Sharif, the revolt
> >in Pakistan - and a number of reported physical attacks on guards
> >if not in restraints, such as a guard who was stabbed in the eye
> >and the brain. There is no sense of surrender as is presumed a
> >POW exhibits. Certainly a 'right' to attempt escape still exists if
> >one is classified as a POW. But there is no 'right' to not accept
> >the new role of a non-combatant, which a POW is required to
> >do. The GC is hard to apply to a group that is still avowed as terrorist,
> >without connection to any legitimate government, who does not accept
> >status as a POW.
>
> Cite please. Which article is that rule set down in?
Article 3, paragraph 1 -- "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,
including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms
and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention,
or any other cause"
Article 4, which defines those categories does not include those
who have not decided they have become non-combatants. Certainly
a POW does not have the 'right' under the terms of the Convention to
'kill' those who have captured him. Such would be a crime, and a
violation of the Convention which presumes POWs accept the
condition of hors de combat in all respects.
Further NONE of the detainees are members of any 'high contracting
party,' which makes the entire argument moot. You might as well
argue that drug-dealers cannot be detained.
> Making things up to hide your spanking is most unseemly.
Yeah, right. Words from the 'Master of Making Things Up.'
I believe I've remarked that you suffer from a form of amnesia, dirt.
Having already made a fool of yourself a number of times, you
forget you have done so, and just do so again. But I admire the
fact that you provided nonsense without an accompanying obscenity.
It's so unlike you to do so.
No... all that needs to be done is to recognize that the Convention
contains the presumption that parties will abide by the conditions of
the Convention. Exactly how many prisoners does the 'other side,'
hold? Exactly what conditions are they held under? Exactly who
IS the 'other side'? It is obvious that the Convention does not apply
to unorganized groups of terrorists having no other bond but to be
terrorists. Thus, none of the conditions of Article 4 are met such
that those terrorists are militia or volunteers belonging to any 'Party'
to the Convention. See
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june02/detainees_2-7.html
for the argument presented on PBS.
> The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, PV. That is a fact.
> Sorry if it doesn't quite fit in with the way you want things to be,
> but that's the way things were.
>
No, actually, the Convention is a U.N. document and the 'government'
of the 'high contracting parties' are those the U.N. recognizes and that
would be the Rabbani government. Or are you that geopolitically naive?
President Burhanuddin Rabbani, the official head of the Northern Alliance
held the country's United Nations seat and had embassies in 33 countries.
The Taliban was never recognized by the United Nations. In fact, after
the events of 9-11, the Taliban petitioned the U.N. for recognition and
that petition was rebuffed for the third time in as many years. See
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9810/21/taliban.un/
Sorry if THAT doesn't quite fit in with the way you want things to be.
> >> <rest snipped, although no less compelling>
> >>
> >> Now, PV, look at:
> >>
> >> URL:http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/8ec4e051a8621595c12564670032d7ef/f4d150837faf39d94125624b005a9029?OpenDocument
> >>
> >> Now, see if you can manage to read the below:
> >>
> >> Article 4
> >>
> >> "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
> >> persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen
> >> into the power of the enemy:
> >>
> >> 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
> >> members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
> >> forces.
> >>
> >There IS only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
> >GC. Article 3 is the more telling definition since IT defines the most
> >fundamental conditions which must be met when holding prisoners and
> >what those prisoners themselves must accept. And IT says --
> >
> >"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
> >of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
> >hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
> >shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any
> >adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,
> >birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."
>
> LOL!
>
> Proving precisely what, other than that I am quite correct, and hat
> you are very wrong?
>
Spell-checker failing you, dirt?
> " Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
> of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
> hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention"
> ^^^^^^^
> You do so love destroying your own argument with your careless cites.
>
But they do not consider themselves 'hors de combat' which is specifically
meant to imply they consider themselves 'out of fight.' They do not consider
'detention' takes them 'out of fight,' thus they are not 'hors de combat.'
Nor are ANY of them members of the 'high contracting party' to the
convention. Article 2 of the Convention clearly defines the parameters
the convention pertains to -- There is a 3-part requirement -- Part 1
is "between two or more high contracting parties." Thus inapplicable.
Part 2 is also inapplicable since there is no 'occupation of a High
Contracting Party.' Part 3 is also inapplicable for the same reason,
and certainly there is armed resistance by those not members of any
'high contracting party.' 'hors de combat' through 'detention' is what
we intend to insure, but there is no agreement that this is because
they are POWs, because they do not consider themselves, nor do
we consider them 'hors de combat,' because they are detained.
> <absolute ****ing _nonsense_ in which PV claims that POWs in Cuba did
> not fit this definition snipped>
>
yada, yada, yada. Snipping again, dirt? Pathetic display on your part,
of total frustration when faced with facts.
> >> 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
> >> including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
> >> Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
> >> even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
> >> volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
> >> the following conditions:
> >>
> >There is only one Party to this 'conflict,' under the meaning of the
> >GC. And it has declared war on no other party.
> >
> >> (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
> >> subordinates;
> >>
> >> (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
> >> distance;
> >>
> >> (c) That of carrying arms openly;
> >>
> >> (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
> >> and customs of war.
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO. If you believe all of these conditions were met by those
> >detainees, you live in la la land.
>
> Which of these conditions were _not_ met by Taliaban fighers, you
> ****wit?
>
Your face must be a rosy red about now in anger and frustration
when confronted with fact. Clearly (b) and (d) were not met. And only one
condition needs to fail to negate (2), since the wording implies ALL 4
conditions must be met. Basically, it's a four-part test for that question.
Number one, you have to have a leader who is responsible for the troops
under him. You have to have people who carry weapons openly. You
have to have a distinctive insignia or uniform visible at a distance. And
you have to yourself comply with the rules of war. Further, Article
17 confirms that "Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the
persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of
war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names,
rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent
information, and date of birth." I would suppose you believe those
Taliban detainees possessed such identification if the Taliban is
a 'Party' in the definition of 'High Contracting Party.' There are many
other considerations which a 'Party' is supposedly bound to for it
to be a 'High Contracting Party.' You should read the whole Convention,
although the general argument is that the definitions of what IS a
POW, and a 'High Contracting Party,' show that those detainees
do not meet the fundamental definitions therein.
> >> 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
> >> government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
> >>
> >They are not 'members of regular armed forces.' Regular armed forces
> >implies a force of a recognized government. Obviously, the U.N. itself
> >did not recognize the Taliban or Al-Quada.
>
> No it ****ing doesn't, you plonker. I should be most interested to see
> on what grounds you base that nonsensical assertion.
>
It's so hilarious when you get so childishly emotional. I can really
picture your face turning a bright crimson with every comment you
read. The U.N. did not recognize the Taliban (and of course Al-Quada),
since the legitimate government at the U.N. at the time the actions
of the allies commenced was the Rabbani government. Repeating --
and I would be interested in your argument which might deny this FACT --
"President Burhanuddin Rabbani, the official head of the Northern Alliance
held the country's United Nations seat and had embassies in 33 countries.
The Taliban was never recognized by the United Nations. In fact, after
the events of 9-11, the Taliban petitioned the U.N. for recognition and
that petition was rebuffed for the third time in as many years." Again, see
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9810/21/taliban.un/
In point of fact, the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan in the U.N.
took an active role in an alliance with the only 'high contracting party' to
the actions taken. That of the allies.
> <increasingly immature refusal to accept the clear fact that both
> al-Quada and Taliban fighers meet the requirements of Article 4
> snipped>
>
Actually, an immature response in itself, since there is certain evidence
that this requirement was never met. Certainly, in the facts that neither
Al-Quada or the Taliban represented any 'high contracting party,' and the
very obvious fact that there is no evidence of 'conducting their operations
in accordance with the laws and customs of war.'
> >> Seeing as you like equations, PV, allow me:
> >>
> >> Taliban + captured by US = POW
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO. Make no mistake about it dirt, the U.S. is out to dominate
> >the world through our military might... be afraid... be very afraid.
> >
> >> US + POW + failure to abide by GC = War criminal/rogue state
> >>
> >Simply another piece of crap, but let me provide the real equation here
> >dirtdog + his idiot rote clip of inapplicable articles + his hate for the U.S. =
> >One huge fuckwit.
> >
> >> <snipped distinct but no less thorough thraping of PV>
> >>
> >> w00f
> >>
> >
> >You are completely out of your depth in discussions of the legal meanings
> >contained in the GC, dirt. It's appalling how you believe that by simply rote
> >repeating the content you have proved some point. Of course, the words
> >are as you've written, since you've just mechanically copied them without the
> >understanding that interpretation of those words lies beyond your legal
> >competence.
> >
> >What you fail to realize is that the Taliban lost any credibility of a 'legitimate
> >government,' as they did not abide by the conventions that their supposedly
> >'legitimate government' was bound to, such as --
> >
> >The Convention on the Political Rights of Women -- Joining on 16 Nov 66.
> >
> >The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
> >Women -- Signed 14 Aug 80.
> >
> >The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- Signed 24 Jan 83.
> >
> >The Convention Against Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
> >Treatment or Punishment -- Signed 1 Apr 87.
> >
> >PV
> >
> >Oh, BTW... a REAL.... spank...spank...spank.
> >
> >
> What causes you to believe that you have administered a spanking to
> anything other than your own wrinkled batty?
>
Because you presented nothing in the way of reality as to any
counterargument except some meaningless expletives of defeat.
Why should I be held responsible for your inability to convey
a cogent meaningful intelligent thought?
And since you took some exception to my 'outted' which is a
recognized colloquial in the U.S., I believe your insistence on
a 'wrinkled batty' makes no sense whatsoever? What particular
part of the human anatomy is a 'batty'? Then tell me how your
word 'thraping' makes sense? And then tell me how to spell
'fighter'? Since you can hardly claim it a typo as you spelled it
wrong twice in exactly the same way in this one post. Plus the
numerous mistakes you make that you blame on such 'typos.'
And then you rant about 'greengrocer apostrophes.' Be careful
that when trying to portray someone as a fool, you don't
demonstrate that you are a fool yourself. But that's advice which
falls on pedantic deaf ears. I'm certain of that.
> Do you really believe that, or is this another case of hilarious
> 'continue talking shit when proven completely wrong' trolling?
Too bad that form of comment seems to be your only argument.
Rest assured it is insufficient in either proof or logic.
> I wonder where in the GC it says that failure to abide by one treaty
> negates the responsibility of others to comply with their obligations
> under others.
It demonstrates that the 'legitimate government' was the government
accepted by the U.N. That 'legitimate government' was the only
entity which can be considered a 'high contracting party.'
> The four treaties cited most ****wittedly by yourself above have
> precisely sod all to do with the Geneva Convention - which the POWs
> taken in Afghanistan were quite patently protected by (see extensive
> and learned discussion by me previously in this thread).
>
As Nixon's tapes, if your 'extensive and learned discussion' had those
expletives deleted, nothing recognizable would remain. Your
argument seems to be that the Taliban can ignore ALL the treaties in
existence which were confirmed by the country and still remain a
legitimate force as a 'high contracting party' of the country
to those treaties. One clearly sees two standards coming from you,
dirt. Since you presume that treaties are ETERNAL when they
seem to meet your particular code. One is well aware that this
particular code of yours coincides quite readily with those of the
Taliban. Since you also suffer from Gynophobia (fear of or contempt
for women), as well as all your other phobias.
> However, using your logic, the next country against which the US
> conducts a military campaign will have every justification in _not_
> abiding by their oligations under the GC, given the breaches by the US
> not only of that treaty itself, but also of the ICCPR (cited
> brainlessly above).
Although having nothing to do logically with the argument, they might make
such a 'claim' were there actual breaches by the U.S. of the ICCPR.
Regardless of your pathetic argument, it is well recognized that agreeing
to treaties while stating exceptions to such an agreement in no way
violates any such agreement when those exceptions are used.
Otherwise, there would be no allowance for ANY exceptions to exist in
treaty agreements. That is so patently obvious that it only makes you
look more ignorant, and more fanatically wrong about it, the more you
dwell on it. But I was simply making the point that because those other
treaties were not abided to by the Taliban, that provided the reasoning for
the U.N. not accepting them as the 'legitimate government.' Certainly
that has not happened in the case of the U.S. government ever being
denied 'legitimate' status by the U.N.
PV
PS -- Spank...spank..spank is still in place.
>
> w00f
>
>
Richard Jackson
We feel the same way about the Taliban and al Qai'da
--
Teflon
John Rennie
--
Teflon
Yeah! But you didn't feel the same way about the IRA until 911 which is
why many of your countrymen financed the IRA. Without American funds the
IRA would not have been able to purchase much of its guns and ammunition
particularly huge amounts of semtex from Czechoslovakia. Irish America and
Giddafi of Libya were in an alliance against Britain. You cannot blame
those that say that "as you sow so shall you reap".
And what about the detainees in Cuba? What are they, Richard POWs or
Political Prisoners. I'll tell you what they are. They are an albatross
around America's neck. They are one of the numerous stupid acts that
America has performed since being victorious in Afghanistan. Your
Government has no bloody idea what to do with them for the simple reason
that they should never have been removed from Afghanistan.
Richard Jackson
Some did, some didn't. The United States did not directly fund the IRA,
although private citizens contributed to the cause.
Without American funds the
> IRA would not have been able to purchase much of its guns and ammunition
> particularly huge amounts of semtex from Czechoslovakia. Irish America and
> Giddafi of Libya were in an alliance against Britain. You cannot blame
> those that say that "as you sow so shall you reap".
I don't. I'm just pointing out that those involved in similar actions
against those they considered terrorists shouldn't now be pointing a
finger at the US. Especially those personally involved.
>
> And what about the detainees in Cuba? What are they, Richard POWs or
> Political Prisoners. I'll tell you what they are. They are an albatross
> around America's neck. They are one of the numerous stupid acts that
> America has performed since being victorious in Afghanistan. Your
> Government has no bloody idea what to do with them for the simple reason
> that they should never have been removed from Afghanistan.
I agree. We should have gotten what we wanted from them and let the
Afghanis have them.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
--
Teflon
Don't start agreeing with me. It's disconcerting. :-)
Richard Jackson
John, we both have our past battles, each in different times and
places. These experiences made us what we are today. In some ways, we
might be much more alike than you think.
I wasn't being especially kind when I suggested releasing the prisoners
to the Afghani after we obtained what we wanted from them. The Afghani
are not long on mercy to enemies.
--
Teflon
John Rennie
snipped for Desmond's benefit.
> Don't start agreeing with me. It's disconcerting. :-)
John, we both have our past battles, each in different times and
places. These experiences made us what we are today. In some ways, we
might be much more alike than you think.
I wasn't being especially kind when I suggested releasing the prisoners
to the Afghani after we obtained what we wanted from them. The Afghani
are not long on mercy to enemies.
--
Teflon
I made that suggestion as soon as the detainees were sent to Cuba. Mercy
has nothing to do with it. Expediency is the name of the game and it's a
game that Bush and co don't know how to play.
A Planet Visitor
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message news:3D32CFAC...@lcc.net...
--
Teflon
IMHO, it would have meant either a de facto sentence of death, or the
release to return to a battle intent on resuming their killing ways. In
effect, regardless of how one sees this issue, lives have been saved.
Either theirs or ours. Which is presumably the desire of sensible
people. But who ever said that certain retentionists are reasonable?
PV