Scalia claims detainees have no rights

[mburbank]

Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights-Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek

03 April 2006 Issue

The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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 on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "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." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S.



A narrow reading of this would mean that Scalia only meant tey have no right to a jury trial, and was simply not answering the question he'd been asked. But even if you restric his response to only the question of a jury trial, doesn't this mean he should recuse himself from the upcoming Supreme court case on this subject? I'm asking seriously, for anyone who has more knowledge of the law then me. Is a Justice allowed to publicly dealre he has already decided on an issue before hearing speciffic arguments in a case?

[Preechr]

Of course not.

Of all people, a SC Justice should have predetermined ideas about what is constitutional and what is not. Why in the world would he recuse himself for having a general opinion on something as inane as a captured terrorist having some sort of right to a trial by jury under the full protection of American laws? It's obvious that's the question he was answering there, isn't it?

Nothing in his quoted comments indicates the issue he was addressing went any further than that, though the context of the larger "story" obviously was attempting to paint his words as saying something altogether different.

"...Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions..."

Did he now? I'd love to see that Scalia quote, wouldn't you? Too bad they didn't include something that groundbreaking in the actual story... or did you just leave that part out, max?

How bout the quote where Scalia said detainees, "don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions..." I don't see that quoted, yet the words that indicated it was still appear as if it were.

I wonder why you left those parts of this HUGE, ground-breaking story out of your post, max? I want to see where he said these things.

[mburbank]

I assure you, it's because of my role in the conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.

My main question to your question would be, since we've already released multiple detainees after determining that they weren't terrorists or in some cases even combatants, how can a responsible jurist simply make a blanket statement lie that? And while he can have preconcieved notions about issues of constitutionality (only a complete idiot wouldn't, though many of the current justices have claimed just that during their hearings) I question if he's fit to hear a case that he's basically said already has no standing before he hears it? He gets to vote not to hear cases that have no merrit, just like all the other justices. The Supreme court refuses to hear cases all the time. If the court agrees to hear a case, aren't they supposed to judge it? This sounds a lot like he's saying, I'll go, but nothing that happens there is meaningful. Why hold court at all, then. Couldn't they just send in their judgement by mail, and maybe save us taxpayers some moolah?


Oh, and listen, thanks for not getting all up in my grill and telling me my post means I don't care about detainees or soldiers and that I'm not funny and should spend more time with my kids. I appreciatte your courtesty. I find personal attacks so... wounding. I know I'd never do it.

[Ant10708]

He personally attacked you?

[mburbank]

Preech? No. I mean, you know, sort of, but not in any way that isn't usual in our exchanges. No, I'm just kidding around becuase Abcdextirous took off after me like a rabid weasel on a coffee jag, so I thought I;d rspond by asking everybody to just be civil.


On account of that being how we do things around here.

[Preechr]

Yes, I only implied max doesn't give a shit about our troops and secretly hopes they all step on IEDs so we lose the war altogether. I would never outright say that, though, because I'm a classy guy.

See, you have to be subtle, otherwise you might hurt somebody's feelings.

Anyhoo... It seems to me the only thing Scalia was responding to was whther or not detainees deserved jury trials in our civil court system as if they were Americans. My point was that all of that other crap... whether or not they had rights under the Geneva Convention, international law or the Constitution... was added by whomever wrote the story as if those were topics of Scalia's discussion, though nothing in his actual quoted comments indicates those issues were ever brought up.

Whenever I read lines like: ...adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo... I have to stop and wonder why he was quoted in such an edited form. What the hell were his actual words if they needed to be condensed down so severely in order to make his thoughts more readable?

How about: Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions...

Where does it show he said that?

"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."

"Give me a break."

"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."

That's all the quotes from Scalia in your original post. ALL he says in there is that detainees have no right to a full jury trial in our civil court system, and I fully agree that any other contention is "crazy."

All I'm saying here is that if more was said, where are the quotes?

"I don't believe terrorist detainees have any rights at all under the Geneva Conventions, our Constitution or even international law," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia failed to say on Monday. "After all, we run the world... Who's gonna stop us? France?! Muhuhahaha!" He did not add while tenting his fingers evilly.

[mburbank]

"My point was that all of that other crap... whether or not they had rights under the Geneva Convention, international law or the Constitution... was added by whomever wrote the story as if those were topics of Scalia's discussion, though nothing in his actual quoted comments indicates those issues were ever brought up. "

Yeah, you're right. The article was a little yellowy, as journalism goes. BUT I BET THAT'S WHAT HE THINKS!!

And for the record, it's not just soldiers I hope step on IED's. It's everybody. Every stinkin' human being on the whole damn planet except me. And then I'll finally have time to read and I'll go to the ruins of the library but my glasses will fall off and smash. Which is ironic, because the book I'd picked up first?

"How to serve mankind"

A cookbook.

Oh, yes my friends. It was a cookbook.

[Ant10708]

Max do you agree or disagree that detainees have a right to a jury trial in our court system?

[mburbank]

Me personally? I think they have a right to a jury trial for a number of reasons.

No statement has ben made about how soon they could get their military tribunal. Some of them have been their four years and have had no access to a lawyer. We have already released some folks we said were totally innocent, which means any of these guys could be. The ones who the case is totally cut and dried should have gone up before a tribunal a long time ago. Holding people indeffinitely without charge is very bad, not just for these folks but for the united states. Deciding any bunch of people have no definied rights (not no rights, but no definition of what their rights may be, human or otherwise) is a very bad precedent to set.

Also, and I know I'm in a minority on this, I don't think we are at war. I don't think you can be at war on tactic. You want to say this is war, take all the Afghanis there (a place we might have legitimtely been at war with) and make them POWs. Everyone else should get a trial. No matter what they may have done (and where we have evidence they should be severely punished). Keeping people like animals in cge and leaving it up to future administrations to do something about is shameful.

[Ant10708]

I don't think we are at war with a tactic either. I do think Afghanstan was very legitmate target for invasion and if we stayed there I think we would be doing alot better with our fight with Al queda and the similar groups who hold similar radical and genocidal beliefs. I like your idea but I think if we labeled all the afghanis we captured as POWs then foriegners we captured should also be POWs. I would think the native afghanis had a more legitmate reason for being a participant of the war or just being caught up at the wrong place at the wrong time compared to like saudi nationals just wandering the hot mountainous area of a foreign country. So I'd like to see the afgnais get a trial before alot of these suspected foriegn fighters. I also don't like how we release some suspected jihadists from western countries while holding others from non allied countries. I guess that is just what you gotta do to keep international relations positive but it def makes the whole system seem even more suspicious.

Gitmo is only filled with people we got from the Afghanstan war, correct? Or have we sent people from the Iraq war there?

[mburbank]

It's my understanding we have people from the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war and people of interest we hve acquired through undisclosed means in undisclosed places. I could be wrong.

We admit that we have had both afghans and pakistanis noncombatants who were basically sold to us under false pretenses for the bounty on combatants, so it stands to reason we still have people who fit that category. There's a case where one inmate wanted to use paperwork from the legal system of his own country and was refused because of the 'undue burden'. A lawyer trying to represent him (who presumably this guy doesn't even know he has) got the documents, and they still wouldn't look at them, so he put them on line and they still haven't looked at them. We've got five Chinese guys there who we admit are innocent, but the Chinese won't take them back so they are STILL at Gitmo. One hopes they are recieveing better treatment, but there's no way to know.

I don't see how this kind of thing is good for the US.

[Preechr]

This is a war on a tactic. This is not just punishment for 9/11. 9/11 was the day we were forced to realize that ignoring the problems we'd helped to create in the world wasn't going to make them just go away. We'd been stirring up hornet's nests all around the world believing we'd never get stung, and we were proven wrong.

The tactic of terrorism had evolved into something that could truly threaten "Our Homeland" even this far away from the Middle East. The War on Terror is a means to render terrorism ineffectual so as to remove that threat. "Spreading Democracy" into the Middle East is a method of replacing one tactic for effecting change with another, more peaceful solution.

[mburbank]

Okay, I'm not even goiung off on that tangent. It deserves a thread of it's own.

Instead, I offer up the following proof that my reaction to Scalias statement was not so outlandish or naive.

Scalia's Recusal Sought in Key Detainee Case
By Charles Lane
The Washington Post

Tuesday 28 March 2006

Retired officers say justice's impartiality is in question after remarks on combatants.

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."


You may still disagree, but it can no longer said that my thoughts on the matter are strictly a matter of not understanding the law.

[Ant10708]

The only thing I did find questionable about what he said was when he mentioned his son. I agree it seemed he was using a personal issue to defend his stance.