US high court judge said to slam detainee rights (Scalia)

[sabra]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26319512.htm

US high court judge said to slam detainee rights


WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo prison detainees have constitutional rights and called European concerns over the issue hypocritical, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The comments, which Newsweek said were recorded at private appearance by Scalia in Switzerland on March 8, were made in advance of a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for this week on a legal challenge by a Guantanamo prisoner against U.S. military tribunals.

Newsweek quoted a human-rights lawyer and legal experts as saying the conservative justice's remarks may compromise his credibility in deciding on the case facing the court, but it said Scalia did not refer directly to this week's case.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiberg, according to Newsweek. "Give me a break."

[LynnTheDem]

1. Scalia is a very ignorant MFer, isn't he.

Amazing. Thought SC judges were better informed about facts than that.

[Judi Lynn]

2. According to Scalia, quoted in this article, US law should be all about

Scalia's personal interests:

Asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have protections under international conventions, Scalia replied, "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."'
(snip/...)

He's not mature enough to be a Justice. He's still gripped by his childish view of how the world should work: everything needs to satisfy and protect Scalia and Scalia's interests.



Isn't it time go hunting with Cheney again?

[AndyTiedye]

12. Please! Please! I'll Buy the Beer!

Isn't it time go hunting with Cheney again?

I hope so. I'd even chip in a keg or two of Cheney's favorite :beer::beer::beer:

[tularetom]

3. The problem with this thinking is

it works both ways. Our "enemies" hear him make statements like this and viola! they actually begin to believe captured American soldiers (like Scalia's son could have been) have no rights and may be tortured. He's right, war is war, but I don't think many Americans would like seeing pictures of their kids in Abu Ghraib like conditions. So what is this like, another instance where talk like this "aids our enemies"?

[coalition_unwilling]

47. Careful, Antonin, there are 140,000 potential POWs still in Iraq

and a potential 20,000 still in Afghanistan. Be careful that the standard you claim for our detainees isn't also exercised by Iraq and Afghanistan on their, i.e., U.S. POW, detainees.

[rzemanfl]

4. We have to take the country back and that absolutely includes

packing the Supreme Court.

[LiberalPartisan]

5. The Constitution follows where the military goes

Or any official delegation of the US exists. This is settled law.

[supernova]

6. Oh so NOW it it's a WAR`

I wish the Neo-Cons would make up their minds.

Just so I get this straight:

It is not a war so that's why we get to call them "enemy combatants," and not have to pay attention to their human rights, according to the Geneva convention.

It is a war so we have to fight and kill and maim every living being we see, be they our own or our "enemies."

Man, this is one fucked up country.

[BR_Parkway]

7. Don't forget that it IS a war so CinC can wiretap, and pretty much anythin

else he wants as Supreme Military commander. Screw the Congress

[supernova]

8. So much more convenient

when you can switch rationales whenever it suits you and no one cares.

You know BR, I used to wonder why civilizations fell. Why the Romans, why the British Empire, (forgetting for the moment all the bad things of empire like slavery, limited citzenship, and a constant underclass), but I don't wonder anymore.

I see it happening here. It's not about increased debauchery and a percieved loosening of morals (as they claimed for the Romans -- well the lead plumbing might have been an issue). It's not about possibly overreaching, as with the British empire. No, the fall of a great civilization is more about becoming arrogant, so arrogant that, in fact, you think you have nothing left to learn. The world is literally your oyster and it can offer you no more: no more conquests, no more delights, no more adventure. You think you've done it all.

You get bored. You get lazy. You stop paying attention and retreat into your own little individual amusements and battles. You stop looking at the big picture. You don't hunger for what's "out there" anymore. You just wish that "out there" would look more like "in here."

And one day, without you fully realizing it, some one else comes to take your place at the top of the hill.

[Dudley_DUright]

9. "Justice" Scalia is the ultimate oxymoron

:mad:

[lovuian]

10. At the Nuremburg trials the followers of the Regime thought

they were right too but the world saw it another way... Scalia will go down in history as a violator of the Geneva Convention!!!

He can shout all he wants but his position is CLEARLY LEGALLY WRONG!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Scalia must recuse himself if such a case comes before The Court.

He has already pre-judged, made up his mind before reading and considering the legal arguments and legal precedents in the briefs and oral arguments. He is NOT independent as he is charged to be a jurist of the court of final appeal.

[Sgent]

14. One problem...

Recusal on SC issues is left up to the individual judge, and I don't see Scalia bowing out.

There is no appeal of Scalia's decision as whether or not to recuse himself. The only option -- and it won't change the trial at hand -- is impeachment.

[annabanana]

15. he decided he didn't have to recuse himself

after that hunting trip with Cheney when they decided that the energy task force roster could stay secret....
Why should he recuse himself for this?

[mvd]

57. He has no integrity at all

That's why.

[cantstandbush]

13. i guess is Scalia had his way there would not have been any trials

after WWII.

[lumpy]

16. Another anti-human rights

supporter speaks. Since Scalia couldn't keep mum on his opinion regarding Guantanamo prisoners, he should recuse himself. Something is terribly wrong when a judge pre-judges publically, no less. The scales of justice are loaded.

[Supersedeas]

55. Recusal is not in a Neo-Con's ethical vocabulary

[Charlie Brown]

17. Newsweek: US High Court Judge reportedly slams detainee rights

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26392292.htm

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights and called European concerns over the issue hypocritical, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The comments, which Newsweek said were recorded at a private appearance by Scalia in Switzerland on March 8, emerge before a Supreme Court hearing this week on a legal challenge by a Guantanamo prisoner against U.S. military tribunals.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiburg, according to Newsweek. "Give me a break."

Ethics experts said the impression that Scalia had already made up his mind before the hearing should mean that he will voluntarily drop out of the proceedings. However, Newsweek said he did not refer specifically to this week's case.

"He should remove himself when there is a reasonable doubt of his impartiality," said Father Robert Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University and long-standing human rights campaigner, who teaches judicial ethics.

[fujiyama]

18. OK Fat Tony

so they're not to be tried in civilian courts...

Are they POWs then?

What else are they? Something in between? Stuck in legal limbo? When does this "war" end? When will terrorism ever be defeated?

[lumpy]

48. GWB said after 9/11

that our world and way of thinking has changed. I quess we should have analyzed the true meaning behind his words. We must realize that our world and way of thinking has NOT changed. We are and should be a country with a fine Constitution and a sense of integrity that has been attacked by something even worse than Al Queda, evildoers who want to change our constitutional way of life.

[Mr_Spock]

19. Scalia really needs to be impeached

It's the only solution - this man is an insane right-wing bigot - get rid of him!

[Inland]

20. "War is war". What a fine legal mind.

What's next for this giant of the law? "Shit happens"?

What he means, of course, is not that "war excuses everything", but it's Bushian corrolary, "War exists when I say it exists". People like Scalia, Lieberman and Frist simply have no concept of opposing a president who demands power. If they had their way, they would close shop six days a week.

[OKNancy]

21. kick

[norml]

22. US high court judge said to slam detainee rights (Reuters)

US high court judge said to slam detainee rights

By Alister Bull | March 26, 2006


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights and called European concerns over the issue hypocritical, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The comments, which Newsweek said were recorded at a private appearance by Scalia in Switzerland on March 8, emerge before a Supreme Court hearing this week on a legal challenge by a Guantanamo prisoner against U.S. military tribunals.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiburg, according to Newsweek. "Give me a break."

Court officials were not immediately available for comment.

Ethics experts said the impression that Scalia had already made up his mind before the hearing should mean that he will voluntarily drop out of the proceedings. However, Newsweek said he did not refer specifically to this week's case.


snip


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/26/supreme_court_justice_said_to_slam_detainee_rights/

[Jack Rabbit]

23. This is disappointing, even coming from Scalia

Treaties signed by the US are the law of the land under the article six of the main body of the constitution. That means that the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are part of pour basic law. Those detainees have rights and they are being violated.

[Webster Green]

24. It's nice to get all the war criminals on record

Helps to build a case for the tribunals.

Fuck the U.S. Supreme W. Court, anyway!:grr:

[Kagemusha]

25. If there was a country called Al Qaeda I'd have no problem with this.

There isn't, and therefore these should've been treated as criminals from the start, if the goods were on them.

And if NOT, then what, we fight Al Qaeda until it surrenders and then we give the people back to Al Qaeda? That's not how it works, but the US is too used to having it both (or 3 or 4 or more) ways and getting away with it to stop now.

[OKNancy]

26. kick

[Radio_Guy]

27. Scalia says civil rights for Guantanamo inmates 'crazy'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060327/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamo_060327151552

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US Supreme Court judge has said it would be "crazy" to give war on terror detainees rights in civil courts, and has castigated Europeans for criticising the Guantanamo detention camp, media reports said.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," Scalia said during a talk on March 8 at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, Newsweek magazine reported.

"Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution," Scalia said

<snip>

And Bush wants more of his kind on the SCOTUS? Unbelievable!

[baldguy]

28. Either treat them as criminals, or treat them as POWs.

There is no third option.

[MadMaddie]

29. The international community is going to eventually get

involved in this...and it's going to be ugly....

[DBoon]

30. "Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights ..."

and the US government should not have to power to forceably detain people outside of US jurisdiction.

You can't have it both ways.

[baldguy]

42. That statement alone is grounds for impeachment.

The US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter & the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all make it imperative that ALL HUMANS HAVE RIGHTS! And these rights can't be taken away arbitrarily without due process.

The US is signatory to each of these documents, therefore they are part of US Law.

[stepnw1f]

31. Crazy? No... What's Crazy is You Sitting on the Supreme Court

you fuckin scumbag!

[NYC Liberal]

32. Not according to the 14th Amendment, Mr "Justice":

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"PERSON" is the key word here. And since the word "citizen" is used SPECIFICALLY in the first sentence, they are obviously not simply being used interchangebly. No person *within the juridisdiction* of the United States shall be denied equal proteciton.

[LynnTheDem]

34. Bingo. And all top USC lawyers agree with exactly that.

Two seoarate and difrferent words; "citizen"...AND "person".

But then bush & Cabal will simply declare the Gitmo Gulag detainees -many of whom are INNOCENT, as admitted to by the US military- NON-persons. Hey it worked for Hitler.

Many Gitmo detainees are INNOCENT. That's a FACT. Is it also "CRAZY" that THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS???

The world knows who the fuck is "CRAZY"...

[NYC Liberal]

40. Little fact:

Only *10* detainees have even been CHARGED with a crime!!

Nobody has even PROVEN that 99% of the people there are even "combatants"!

[LynnTheDem]

43. And several are PROVEN to be INNOCENT.

Yet funny thing...they're still there.

But then, being non-persons, it would be CRAZY to think they have any rights.

[NYC Liberal]

45. Did you know that nine Chinese citizens are being held

at Guantanamo - even though the government has SAID that they are INNOCENT? Even worse - the judge hearing their case claimed they it was ILLEGAL but that he couldn't overrule the president!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011601033.html

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled last month that the Bush administration's "Kafka-esque" detention of the Uighurs was illegal but he simultaneously determined that the court lacked the power to overrule the president and free them"

"The government acknowledges that the Uighurs were imprisoned by mistake in 2002. Military officials determined in 2004 that they were not enemy combatants and should be released."

[LynnTheDem]

46. Yeppers. I did know that.

Too bad most Americans don't know and/or don't give a shit that the United States Of America is holding 9 INNOCENT people in the US concentration camp and REFUSES to let them go, REFUSES to give them ordinary decent human rights, REFUSES to give them a trial...

America the UGLY. THANK BUSH!

[NYC Liberal]

49. Ooh but they're "foreigners." Can't let them have rights!

But even AMERICANS, right here in the US of A, are harrased by the police, Secret Service, etc. for things as simple as wearing a T-SHIRT or putting up a POSTER. A 15 year old was detained by the SS because...*gasp* he made an anti-Bush sketch! And American citizens are being required to sign a "loyalty oath" just to see their (supposedly) elected president speak.

Seig Heil! Welcome to Amerika!

[LynnTheDem]

51. Under the USC, "foreigners" clearly have rights. Not to mention

under the "quaint" Geneva Conventions (will the rightwingnuttery still screech it's "quaint" when other nations decide to do a george w bush to US citizens???).

To bush, his Cabal & the rightwingnuttery, they aren't "foreigners", they are NON-PERSONS.

Sig Heil!

[NYC Liberal]

53. First thing any tyrranical regime does: dehumanize the opposition.

That way they make sure none of their loyal lemmings suddenly start to feel "bad" about what they're doing/supporting.

[LynnTheDem]

54. Yep. ALWAYS.

And the rightwingnuttery pundits have been doing that against non-rightwingnut fellow Americans for years now, ramping it up the past few years.

And a whole lot of rightwingnut Americans in this country would not have a problem with their fellow Americans (non-rightwingnuts, that is) being gassed or beheaded and mass-graved.

No problem with it at all.

Because they've been indoctrinated; we are traitors, enemies, evil. And when it's all over, they will sit stunned and wonder how the fuck they could have let it happen. Well gee, coz you're a pack of mindless idiots who let yourselves be indoctrinated rather than think for yourselves and have no morality whatsoever? Just a thought.

[ThoughtCriminal]

36. Maybe he thinks the 14th doesn't really exist

From the legal minds at FR:

"THE "INFAMOUS" 14TH AMENDMENT!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/782303/posts

[sutz12]

38. Really. Can he even read?

It is important to remember that the word citizen is no where in the original 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights. If one was a strict constructionist, he would have to believe that even asking for someone's ID is a violation of the prohibition of illegal search and seizure. That was subverted by the drivers license required by all states, and we are probably close to a national ID in the near future. "Your papers, please?"

Nice to know our SCOTUS is protecting our rights. :sarcasm:

[endarkenment]

41. exactly.

The only legal issue here is the difficulty finding a court that accepts jurisdiction. That is a technicality, not a legal principle.

[Rex]

52. That's just it - not a State but the Feds in DC.

More exactly, the District of Columbia is enforcing Gitmo policy.

[ThoughtCriminal]

33. Can somebody explain

How he graduated from Harvard Law School?

From his statements, I would assume his law degree was from the "University of Close Cover Before Striking" (UCCBS)

[LynnTheDem]

35. In one word.

money.

[cureautismnow]

37. In other words, Scalia Supports Kidnapping

Capturing someone and holding them indefinitely without bringing charges is kidnapping. At least in the civilized world... This confirms the barbarity of this Cro-Magnon man.

:crazy:

[endarkenment]

39. Human rights? That's crazy talk.

This shithead is now a US SC justice and doesn't think that human beings have rights.

Scalia is also either a liar or an idiot. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts" he says, either knowing full well that a 'captured combatant' would fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions and would not be subject to trial at all, nor torture, nor punishment, would be entitiled to all the rights and privileges enunmerated in the GC and would have to be returned to his country of origin as soon as the hostilities were over or being a complete moron incompetent to be seated on the highest court.

"Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution" - another false statement, in the context of how the government treats persons it places under its control, the act of doing so outside US territory deprives that person of his rights only in the sense that it may be difficult to find a court that acknowledges that it has jurisdiction. The theory that the US government can treat people without any regard to their civil rights as long as that treatment is accomoplished outside the territory of the united states is a prime example of the banality of evil.

[LynnTheDem]

44. "banality of evil". Well that sums up bush & his cabal perfectly.

And evil they most certainly are. The entire bunch of them.

[Rex]

50. Dude, he fucking helped PICKED who would be POTUS in 2000.

Why should Fat Tony give a rats ass about us or any other peon?

[fshrink]

56. Va f'enculo.