Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Krusty · 11:42 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court placed the first limits on President Bush's war on terrorism on Monday when it ruled that terror suspects can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement.

The rulings, the first the court has made on Bush's anti-terrorism policies, marked a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In one ruling, the court said the nearly 600 foreign terror suspects held for two years at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could turn to American courts to challenge their confinement. In another ruling, it said an American terror suspect held in his nation is entitled to a chance to contest the government's decision.

"Today's historic rulings are a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts," Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said.

Zimphire · Jun 29, 2004, 12:21 AM

Ah.. Good news to terrorists.

They will love this.

Sometimes the system doesn't work.

zachs · Jun 29, 2004, 12:27 AM

You mean...Bush isn't omnipotent anymore? No more Super Bush? OMFG!

Zimphire · Jun 29, 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
You mean...Bush isn't omnipotent anymore? No more Super Bush? OMFG!

Wow that would mean we had a Super Clinton, and a Super Bush Sr, and a Super Reagan, and a Super every other President before.

Like I have said before, if we had the liberal whine bags we have now, in the 1930s/1940s, we'd have lost WWII.

They aren't concerned with what is best for the country. They are concerned with what is best for their party. Screw the country.

Krusty · Jun 29, 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah.. Good news to terrorists.

They will love this.

Sometimes the system doesn't work.

This is one of the nuttier stances I've seen you take, Zim. What this limitation implies is that we'll theoretically do a much better job of figuring out which terrorist suspects are really terrorists and which aren't This is the right thing on a practical level (not just an ethical one). Incarcerating innocents indefinitely serves absolutely no purpose in protecting us from terrorism. Having an independent 3rd party (the judiciary) that rules on just cause for holding individual detainees can legitimate incarceration as well as refute it.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

They aren't concerned with what is best for the country. They are concerned with what is best for their party. Screw the country.

Really, what party does the Supreme Court (the folks that made this decision) represent ??

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Like I have said before, if we had the liberal whine bags we have now, in the 1930s/1940s, we'd have lost WWII.

U.S. History comprehension much ??

Dr.HermanG. · Jun 29, 2004, 01:17 AM

All the administration will need to do is keep future detainees in secret.

xenu · Jun 29, 2004, 01:24 AM

I don't think Zimphire will be happy until the USA is a police state.

I will never understand some people's need to be dictated too by authority.

Spheric Harlot · Jun 29, 2004, 04:03 AM

Wait - if the Supreme Court is Conservative (and it is), how can this decision be construed as a pro-terrorist/anti-American conspiracy, as Zimphire would have it?

Oh yeah:

It's that goddamn left-wing-rag Constitution, I tell you!

Liberal print media.

-s*

Spheric Harlot · Jun 29, 2004, 04:05 AM

Oh, and http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=218321

phoenixboy70 · Jun 29, 2004, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by xenu:
I don't think Zimphire will be happy until the USA is a police state.

I will never understand some people's need to be dictated too by authority.

it's because some (actually most) people are just spineless and cowardice worms. it's the same everywhere in the world.

undotwa · Jun 29, 2004, 05:29 AM

While I wasn't exactly campaigning for the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to be tried by a Civil Judicial Authority, I don't not (The double negative is intented to be read literally) welcome this move. While I think it would do no harm by trial of the US courts, this decision was really pushed for political reasons and not for any real concern for the actual prisoners. I don't think a military tribunal is any worse than a court hearing. They seem to give good military defence lawyers.

Spheric Harlot · Jun 29, 2004, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
While I think it would do no harm by trial of the US courts, this decision was really pushed for political reasons and not for any real concern for the actual prisoners. I don't think a military tribunal is any worse than a court hearing. They seem to give good military defence lawyers.

The point is that until now, they have had no right to any hearing at all, whether military or regular court.

Read Troll's lengthy explanation of the siginificance over in the other thread.

-s*

Logic · Jun 29, 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
While I wasn't exactly campaigning for the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to be tried by a Civil Judicial Authority, I don't not (The double negative is intented to be read literally) welcome this move. While I think it would do no harm by trial of the US courts, this decision was really pushed for political reasons and not for any real concern for the actual prisoners. I don't think a military tribunal is any worse than a court hearing. They seem to give good military defence lawyers.

So the conservative Supreme Court is punishing Bush? He seems to be making enemies faster than he can say Evil-Doers� at the moment.

xenu · Jun 29, 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
While I wasn't exactly campaigning for the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to be tried by a Civil Judicial Authority, I don't not (The double negative is intented to be read literally) welcome this move. While I think it would do no harm by trial of the US courts, this decision was really pushed for political reasons and not for any real concern for the actual prisoners. I don't think a military tribunal is any worse than a court hearing. They seem to give good military defence lawyers.

The Australian's lawyer is so good, he is being theatened with an investigation for some comments he has been saying about milatary courts. He seems happy to call a 'spade' a 'spade', and there are those who would rather he didn't.

From everything I have read, he seems like a great person to have on your side.

Zimphire · Jun 29, 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Krusty:
This is one of the nuttier stances I've seen you take, Zim. What this limitation implies is that we'll theoretically do a much better job of figuring out which terrorist suspects are really terrorists and which aren't This is the right thing on a practical level (not just an ethical one). Incarcerating innocents indefinitely serves absolutely no purpose in protecting us from terrorism. Having an independent 3rd party (the judiciary) that rules on just cause for holding individual detainees can legitimate incarceration as well as refute it.

As we have seen in the US system Krusty, just because you have done something wrong, doesn't mean you are guilty. Look at O.J.

How do we know they are innocents? You are assuming they are. You know if we would have caught the people in 9/11 before they did the dastardly deed, they would be "innocents" too you know.

U.S. History comprehension much ??

What is that supposed to mean? Yes I know about US history. I also know that the liberal mindset of today, would have lost us the War.

Zimphire · Jun 29, 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by xenu:
I don't think Zimphire will be happy until the USA is a police state.

Nonsense.

effgee · Jun 29, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How do we know they are innocents? You are assuming they are. You know ... *snip*

The expression "innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell with you at all? And if you're serioulsy going to tell me (and the good folks here) that principle shouldn't apply to suspected terrorists - then yes, you are advocating a police state - big time.

phoenixboy70 · Jun 29, 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by effgee:
The expression "innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell with you at all? And if you're serioulsy going to tell me (and the good folks here) that principle shouldn't apply to suspected terrorists - then yes, you are advocating a police state - big time.

*bingo*

and here we go again.

"is it safe....?"

macvillage.net · Jun 29, 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah.. Good news to terrorists.

They will love this.

Sometimes the system doesn't work.

I wonder if you would say this if I were to call the FBI and claim you said terrorist threats to me, and you were detained indefinately on terrorism charges. Would you honestly be ok with that sinareo?

There quite a few stories out there of people who took advantage of the situation post 9/11. Some have been caught, some haven't. From money scams, to calling false alarms for attention, or to get others in trouble.

Millennium · Jun 29, 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
As we have seen in the US system Krusty, just because you have done something wrong, doesn't mean you are guilty. Look at O.J.

OJ had some of the best -and most despicable- lawyers in the business on his side. And yes, because of that, a guilty man went free. Better that than for an innocent to be wrongly punished. You are right that sometimes the system fails; this is inevitable with any system. It is designed so that when it does fail, the guilty and innocent alike go free, rather than the innocent being punished along with the guilty.

How do we know they are innocents? You are assuming they are.

Um... yes. That's the point of the US legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

macvillage.net · Jun 29, 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um... yes. That's the point of the US legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

Well, vote for bush and we'll correct that:

Innocent until proven heterosexual-christian.

(sadly, that isn't far off)

effgee · Jun 29, 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well, vote for bush and we'll correct that:Innocent until proven heterosexual-christian.

Shouldn't that say: "Guilty until proven white-heterosexual-christian republican"?

(P.S. Before anyone gets their panties up in a bunch - note the use of smilies above.)

spacefreak · Jun 29, 2004, 10:14 AM

Congress needs to get involved here. This ruling is flawed.

In no way is it realistically feasible to have soldiers and officers from the battlefield (Iraq, Afghanistan) flying all over the world to testify before a court as to how, when, where, and why they "captured" each and every enemy combatant, only to then have judges decide on battlefield operations.

We need our servicemen in the theater doing their jobs. This ruling, if it stands as is, will lead to the both the US killing more enemies on the battlefield and the US hosting more prisoners in offshore prisons.

MacGorilla · Jun 29, 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Congress needs to get involved here. This ruling is flawed.

In no way is it realistically feasible to have soldiers and officers from the battlefield (Iraq, Afghanistan) flying all over the world to testify before a court as to how, when, where, and why they "captured" each and every enemy combatant, only to then have judges decide on battlefield operations.

We need our servicemen in the theater doing their jobs. This ruling, if it stands as is, will lead to the both the US killing more enemies on the battlefield and the US hosting more prisoners in offshore prisons.

We need the Bush administration to treat these people as POWs to avoid all that.

macvillage.net · Jun 29, 2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
We need the Bush administration to treat these people as POWs to avoid all that.

The reason we will never declare war.

Bush will never treat them as POW's. He'd pay another country that doesn't honor the geneva conventions millions to take them, and hold/torture/exterminate them before that happens.

I agree with you... but it will never happen.

itai195 · Jun 29, 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What is that supposed to mean? Yes I know about US history. I also know that the liberal mindset of today, would have lost us the War.

WTF?

Anyway this is just more misdirection from you. I have to hand it to you Zimph, you have mastered that skill.

OldManMac · Jun 29, 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by itai195:
WTF?

Anyway this is just more misdirection from you. I have to hand it to you Zimph, you have mastered that skill.

Another reason to put Zimphire on ignore.

Sadly, there are many others who don't understand that innocent until proven guilty works in favor of all!

Millennium · Jun 29, 2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by KarlG:
Sadly, there are many others who don't understand that innocent until proven guilty works in favor of all!

Well, no, not quite all. Be careful of harboring illusions that anything is good for everyone. When the guilty go free, it certainly isn't good for their future victims (or even their past ones).

If "innocent until proven guilty" worked in favor of everyone, then it would be a perfect system, and there is no such thing. However, it's better than most, in that it's designed so that when it fails, it fails on the side of not directly punishing innocents. The aforementioned future victims get shafted, true, but this is something which cannot possibly be avoided; the only sure-fire way of doing it would be to enslave everyone, and that would be a crime beyond imagining.

PacHead · Jun 29, 2004, 04:12 PM

Innocent until guilty, baloney.

This is a war against enemy terrorists, not some thugs that were apprehended robbing a grocery store. The enemy is sending their forces out all over the world inorder to fight us. And, if we catch one of them, they will be locked up, if we don't happen to kill them first.

US soldiers are out there, risking their lives. I would sure hope they shoot first, when coming into contact with the enemy, as opposed to having the liberal mindset, that will get them killed.

The whole idea of "war" is to eliminate the enemy, and it seems like we're doing a decent job so far, though we still have a lot of "eliminating" left to do.

daimoni · 11:23 AM

.

daimoni · 11:23 AM

.

effgee · Jun 29, 2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
(...), and it seems like we're doing a decent job so far, though we still have a lot of "eliminating" left to do.

We're doing a decent job? Who's "we"? The people in your hometown? The guys who bring your newspaper? Your neighbors' cats? Because it sure as hell ain't the "War on Terra" that's going well. The only decent job the retards of this administration are doing is making things worse - a whole lot worse. Kind of like so (note the source!):

Updated Terror Report Shows Rise in Incidents
Significant acts of terror worldwide reached a 21-year high in 2003, the State Department announced Tuesday as it corrected a mistaken report (...)

"We're doing a decent job so far" Yeah right - a job so decent that they attempted to cook up the numbers in that report when it was first published. They're doing a sh!t-job, that's what they're doing.

Spliffdaddy · Jun 29, 2004, 04:53 PM

The US has been terror free.

So, yeah, so far so good.

itai195 · 05:10 PM

Uh... no meteors have landed in my backyard either, so I guess my meteor shield is working.

gatekeeper · Jun 29, 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The US hasn't been terror free.

Fixed.

effgee · 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The US has been terror free. So, yeah, so far so good.

Why, thank you! my point exactly - why should you give a rat's behind that, as a result of the actions of the politicians you support, thousands of people ("phew - in other countries only - thank god for that") had to die?

Nothing beats seeing a so-called "compassionate conservative" when the "compassionate" part of the facade begins to crackle.

(Bush) "My fellow 'Muricans, I hereby declare war on terra!"
(Supporters) "Yay - kill the bastards!"
(Bush) "My fellow 'Muricans, I am proud to present to you the State Dept.'s report on international terra - we're winning!"
(Reporter) "You sure these numbers are correct?"
(Bush) "Hmmm .... lemme get back to you on that"
(WH Press Release) "Due to unfortunate mistakes, the numbers quoted in the latest terror report were inaccurate - the actual number of incidents is the highest ever"
(Bush) "But there hasn't been a single attack on US soil since 9/11 - we're winning"
(Supporters) "Yay - George, you're the best!"

Low standards, indeed ...

Spliffdaddy · Jun 29, 2004, 05:44 PM

George Bush is the president of the US - not the world.

I live in the US.

Other than 2 psychopaths with a varmint rifle and a full-size Buick back in 2002, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US.

My standards are very high. And so far, Dubya's war on terror has exceeded my expectations.

effgee · Jun 29, 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
(...) Dubya's war on terror has exceeded my expectations.

Good for you!

And the rest of us - who have higher expectations - we'll be waiting ever so patiently until Jan. 05 comes around.

(edit: successfully resisted taking a real cheap shot at the first sentence in your comment above)

Atomic Rooster · Jun 29, 2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How do we know they are innocents? You are assuming they are.

Cornerstone of the system. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Back to school for you son, no child left behind.

macvillage.net · Jun 29, 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Innocent until guilty, baloney.

This is a war against enemy terrorists, not some thugs that were apprehended robbing a grocery store. The enemy is sending their forces out all over the world inorder to fight us. And, if we catch one of them, they will be locked up, if we don't happen to kill them first.

US soldiers are out there, risking their lives. I would sure hope they shoot first, when coming into contact with the enemy, as opposed to having the liberal mindset, that will get them killed.

The whole idea of "war" is to eliminate the enemy, and it seems like we're doing a decent job so far, though we still have a lot of "eliminating" left to do.

But why can't I accuse you of plotting terrorism, and have you put away indefinately, with no trial/hearing, or anything? Why can't I do it to your mother? What's stopping me or anyone else?

If I cared enough to do it, I'm sure it's fesable. I'm positive people have done it. It's the perfect revenge. And it's not to tough. The FBI is so overwhelmed right now, and afraid of missing something, they would gladly fall for it.

It's an easy game to play. If I was mean enough, I could get someone in jail on terrorism charges. You could to. So could anyone else on this forum. A little thought on a plan is all that's required.

And as you said.... you don't deserve the right to be proven innocent. Even if someone is just making it up and framing you. Tough luck.

That's america right?

You know, the Solviets did the same thing during the cold war (and the US to a more limited degree). People disappeared in the middle of the night on bogus accusations from someone who didn't like them and reported ficticious charges to the police... hundreds of thousands died that way over the years.

And the US said that was wrong, and violated the laws of the civilized world.... and now we do it.

What really prevents someone with a little time on their hands for putting you in jail indefinately just because they don't like you for whatever reason. It's completely feasible. Just nobody has taken the time to do it to you yet. But what could you do if it happens? What would you say (and to whom)?

undotwa · Jun 29, 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
OJ had some of the best -and most despicable- lawyers in the business on his side. And yes, because of that, a guilty man went free. Better that than for an innocent to be wrongly punished. You are right that sometimes the system fails; this is inevitable with any system. It is designed so that when it does fail, the guilty and innocent alike go free, rather than the innocent being punished along with the guilty.

Um... yes. That's the point of the US legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

The only way to make sure all innocent people are not in jail, is to release everyone. The only way to ensure that all guilty people are locked up, is to imprison everyone.

Personally, I think, while I think that our system isn't perfect, it is pretty damn good in comparison to some others.

undotwa · Jun 29, 2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
So the conservative Supreme Court is punishing Bush? He seems to be making enemies faster than he can say Evil-Doers� at the moment.

The Supreme Court isn't that conservative.

What I was mainly referring to, were the politicians advocating such a move. It is a very popular issue in the Australian Media (you can't avoid it, it is in every News bulletin). It has been used as a way to vilify John Howard, because he believes in letting the US try the Australian prisoners according to the American methods because they are their prisoners.

macvillage.net · Jun 29, 2004, 08:31 PM

If they were really locked up with reason... a court would find them guilty.

If these are just random people put in jail, so the president can talk about how many people he put away. Just serving as numbers.... then the courts will see that as well. I think this is the primary fear of all. That there may be innocent people there just to inflate numbers... or just people wrongly accused. As well as people who don't want it to come out.

Anyone who really wants the government to lock people away with no trial, or due process should go to a country like Communist Russia, Iraq, Afganistan... these countries did it for years. In fact, that's was a major component in the US hating these countries. It was the fact that we didn't do this that America felt superior.

Now we are down on the their level.

Ironic.

Zimphire · Jun 29, 2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Cornerstone of the system. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Back to school for you son, no child left behind.

Until recently, it only applied to US citizens.

Krusty · Jun 29, 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oh, and http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=218321

d@mmit !! That's the second time I've done that this week. Guess I need to quit having a life and start gluing myself to these forums again so that I don't duplicate topics

OK, now to read the rest of this thread ....

Spheric Harlot · Jun 30, 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Until recently, it only applied to US citizens.

Dude, quit flaunting your ignorance.

It applied to *anyone* who entered the US judicial system.

-s*

Dr.HermanG. · Jun 30, 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Until recently, it only applied to US citizens.

No, it applies to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.

macvillage.net · Jun 30, 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
No, it applies to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction.

Bingo.

And who was under U.S. jurisdiction has varied from time to time (making Zimphire partially correct, though still 95% wrong).... but you hit it right on the head.

ANyone under U.S. jurisdiction gets treated under US law.

And as a note: When you travel abroad to any state dept. approved country, you are under their laws *NOT* US laws.

A typical difference b/w a foreigner and a civilian is contact with an embassy who can advise you of your rights and provide legal aid within the law. American citizens are granted this privilage when traveling (when your arrested abroad, you should identify yourself as an american, and request contact with the nearest embassy). As well as foreigners here in America.

When traveling it's normally a good idea to have the local embassy's phone/address in your wallet, per state dept. recommendations.