OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

whatevers

saboteurs,

being

not

for

orders

that

Is not the Supreme Court a civil court? Did they not hear and issue a decision on a pleading brought by the saboteurs? My sense of logic does not stretch to a limit that allows them to issue a ruling on a case, without having heard the case.

belief

I was referring to the position taken by the Administration lawyers in their arguments of this case. After they lost, the Pentago changed the legal mechanisms through which the captives were being processed, apparently to reduce potential criticism from _civil courts_.

Self-Appointed Chief, Apostrophe Police?? Try Self-Appointed Chief, Village Idiot. Has a better ring to it, don't you think? Probably suits you better as well.

"ACK", Bill D.

" Now just look..... they're burning the `Porta-Potties' " ........ OPUS

Look man, we've been suckered. The fucker is a *Master* Troll. People in discussion/argument invariably are only too willing to provide source material which can then be discussed concerning validity etc. This guy sails through this shit with the same limited vocabulary for all subject matter and not one goddam word to back his perspective. I say f*ck 'im, he's not worth the effort.

--
"ACK",
  Bill D.

" Now just look..... they\'re burning the `Porta-Potties\' "
  ........ OPUS

Yes, I have but I'll paste it again.

This text gives the basic criteria for who is defined as a 'prisoner of war' and entitled to the protections afforded 'prisoners of war'------------------

"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 (regular) armed forces of a Party (country - government - signatory [or a party acting in accordance with the convention rules as if they were a signatory]) to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

1. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party (as defined above) 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."

----------------- comments in () added by me for clarification

Now, if you don't fall into any category defining "prisoner of war" then you are not entitled to the protections defined for "prisoner of war" because you are not a "prisoner of war" as it is defined.

If you follow the "laws and customs of war" you are behaving in a lawful manner and we say you are a "lawful combatant." If you do not follow the "laws and customs of war" you are an "unlawful combatant."

Got it?

If you spent any time at all researching the matter you'd know "unlawful combatant", and the equivalent, or other, variation "illegal combatant," has been in use for some hundred years or so.

As for the Geneva Convention, no, the 'exact words' are not used. It is simply the obvious consequence of being the opposite of those who are compliant with the rules. Legal --- Illegal Lawful --- unlawful.

But, I tell ya what. Since you want to play that game let's have some real fun, shall we? On different subject, like the 4'th amendment, just for fun.

Now, we all know what the 4'th amendment says and means but let's look anyway.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Is there any such thing as a "reasonable search?" According to your "where it even mentions" argument I guess not because the words "reasonable search" appear no where in it. Oh well, so much for law enforcement.

But there's more fun to be had. Notice there's no mention of any requirement to ever "issue" a search warrant, only that "no Warrants shall issue" unless they're specific. Oh well, we'll save a lot of paperwork that way.

BUT, there's even MORE fun to be had. Notice there's nothing whatsoever mentioned about where or what these warrants mysteriously issue forth from. Doesn't say a Court, the President, Congress, your local grocery store, or anything at all.

See how much fun that was? Renders the whole thing rather useless but it was fun.

On the other hand, if you want to be reasonable in interpreting the obvious...

If you don't fall into any category defining "prisoner of war" then you are not entitled to the protections defined for "prisoner of war" because you are not a "prisoner of war" as it is defined.

If you follow the "laws and customs of war" you are behaving in a lawful manner and we say you are a "lawful combatant." If you do not follow the "laws and customs of war" you are an "unlawful combatant."

I've told you before that I have not 'defended' anything. I pointed out that the article misrepresents it, just like you perpetually misrepresent what I said.

To wit, if I see someone misrepresent Mein Kampf and say so that is not me 'defending' the contents of Mein Kampf. e.g. Someone says "Mein Kampf is Hitler's memoirs." I say, "That is a misrepresentation of Mein Kampf." I have not 'defended' the contents of Mein Kampf, I have merely pointed out that saying it's Hilter's memoirs is a misrepresentation of it.

I have no need to 'explain' your inventions of something not done.

No, the Supreme Court upheld that they did *not* have access to the civil courts.

That the Supreme Court has ruled on those matters as well shows your belief to be incorrect.

Yes, they could. What I have a problem with are the critics who are apparently afraid to give the full text and context for fear someone might disagree with their 'analysis' of it.

Yes. There's nothing to prevent a government from being 'nicer' than 'required'. However, even if one chooses to be 'nicer' you do not want to miss state the status for a myriad of reasons with not the least being once you've done so you've set a precedent that legally befuddles the definition.

Just look at the debate over what kind of treatment is what.

Or, it could be because he was able to give both pro and con and a proper interpretation of what the laws actually say rather than what one wishes they said.

Should there be a sudden release of significant amounts of the 6-8 g ether into the room of my PC case and it ignited, I'd put the wall of the case back on, if it fell off. If it lethally hit a bug ... hmm, I'll bury it in the floral box at my window.

Since you seem to be a more experienced chemist than I am, maybe you can help. I got a mail that copper and aluminium should not be mixed as they would corrode electrochemically. Do you see a possibility of this in an ether environment, maybe with some traces of water.

Is there a way of peroxide formation in the absence of oxygen? There is oxygen in ether but I don't think it would break down, especially in the absence of UV. Are diethyl ether peroxides soluble in diethyl ether? What is their melting/explosion point?

The epoxy I use is UHU plus endfest 300. It cures at 20 C in 12 h to

1200 N/cm2 and at 180 C in 5 min to 3000 N/cm2. I used 180 C. It claims stability against dampness, oil, dilute acids and basics and many solvents. This epoxy was recommended to me as vacuum sealant. Do you think it will leak ether? Could it leak oxygen in after possibly being softened by ether?

Thanks, Bernhard

Yeah, they did. I mean, that's what they said they were doing when they said it.

That's the way it's supposed to work, yes.

A few more minor details like being a recognized government in operational control so you can't just wave your hand and say "Hi there, I'm a government" but, yes, when a sovereign nation does it.

But then, Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation.

Why did you pick diethyl ether as the working fluid? What were the other options (if any)?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

There have been multiple cases in both the lower courts and the Supreme Court.

No, you?

you

answers.

HATE....... you hate a certain people as a whole without knowing a certain anyone....I think that's bigotry...or maybe prejudice....both are not attributes to be proud of...but you sling hate around pretty easy, do you teach your offspring to be as narrow minded as you?

Are you defending the right of the American military to torture prisioners?

This explanation....? "Geneva protections afforded Prisoners of War do not apply to illegal combatants, just as the Geneva Convention explicitly says, and they never have."

It does not seem that you have read or are unable to comprehend anything of what you read. Could you quote where in the Geneva Convention says anything about 'illegal combatants'?

Unless you can point what you object to in the two references above, your comment is out of place.

Geo

I beg your pardon. I believe I am a member of the same nation as Mr. Maynard, and if you had not noticed, I am not agreeing with much of what he says.

For that matter, according to the published polls, most of "our nation" doesn't agree with what Mr. Maynard has been saying.

So, as evidence that our nation is totally paranoid, you quote a newspaper published in our nation, complaining about the activities of our current government?

I know it's confusing, but trust me, not everybody here is a ditto-head.

I understand the confusion but it's one of those legal things like corporations being 'persons' for the purpose of constitutional protections, but not really. The Supreme Court does not try 'criminal' cases and so is not a 'civil court' in that context. They hear Constitutional matters and, in that context, the Supreme Court ruled on whether they were entitled to access to the courts and ruled that no they were not.

No, they didn't change to avoid 'criticism'. They changed because the court ruled on what an appropriate procedure would be and the procedure was a military review, not a civil court action.

No, I just get tired of reading your colorful tirades and there's little purpose in conversing with "ya f***in' idiot," "gets you all f***ed up" and "ya f****ng imperialist asshole" and other emotional outbursts.

No.

Yes, and it's all explained in the rather lengthy post, including the applicable text of the Geneva Convention, that you hacked to bits in order to write that nonsense.

Most certainly does, as was explained in glowing detail in the portions you hacked out.

My claims are not only exactly the same but are supported and explained in excruciating detail in the portions you hacked out.

I explained it the first time and you snipped it out, just as you hacked this one to bits, so I am not about to waste my time doing it again.

But thank you for the demonstration of how it's done by hacking the original text to bits so you can misrepresent it and the remaining fragments.

Twist what? Al Qaeda not being a sovereign nation confuses you?

No, they were just harbored and based there. Trained there and planned 9-11 there.

No, that was the unrecognized pretend government who terrorized Afghanistan and harbored Al Qaeda.

An International Terrorist organization that's declared war on the US specifically and pretty much the entire civilized world by action.

The same thing that all the Japanese soldiers who didn't fly airplanes had to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor. They're combatants for the side we're at war with.

Frankly, you're the one who seems terribly confused about it.

Correct.

They allied with Al Qaeda.

You may have noticed we had to fight Germany and Italy too after Pearl Harbor for the same reason.

You may be confused but our troops know when bullets are whizzing by their head.

The nuttiness is you acting as if 9-11 didn't happen.

I'm not going to debate individual cases with you but shall I post articles of the 3,000 dead from the World Trade Center?

Then why do you call it a misrepresentation? You say that they are not protected, hence ....what? They can be tortured?

You failed to point where it says that they are to be considered 'illegal combatants'.

The one utterly confused seem to be you. Let's see, you object to the criticism of the Gonzales memo. Do you support it then?

Geo

/etc, etc./

Yep. The guy seems unable to argue beyond very simple statements, such as ' I think I'm 'right' and, fortunately for me, I am.', or 'Utter nonsense' to things he disagrees with but is unable to debate. When he finally quoted from the Geneva Convention to justify his position on 'illegal combatants' he failed to realize that the Geneva Convention makes no mention of 'illegal' or 'unlawful' combatants. Even if we don't consider the Geneva Convention, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It does seem pointless to continue this thread, as he seems to have a serious case of jingoism, or worse.

Geo