Posted on 03/26/2006 11:44:36 AM PST by RebekahT
The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo 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 Freiburg 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. Army in Iraq. Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
With Alito and Roberts on the bench, I am hoping that the creeping assertions of jurisdiction over the military by the imperial judiciary will be curtailed.
Another son is a Catholic priest.
God bless Antonin Scalia. Where are the others Justices with common sense like this?
This article goes on to imply Scalia should recuse himself on a case before the Supreme Court because he spoke so openly about this
Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva convention. End of story.
The anti-U.S. and anti-Iraqi forces in Iraq are not operating from the ranks of Iraq's, or any other nation's armed forces.
They do not wear military uniforms or insignia, and do not limit their attacks to members of the Iraqi or U.S. military. They target civilians, men women and children regularly.
The detainees at Gitmo exposed themselves to our military tribunals by their actions. The way to avoid those tribunals was to refrain from taking actions that would qualify them as a terrorist.
Of course, because that's what the liberals want him to do. His vote is crucial, especially since the CJ is already recusing himself.
he won't recuse himself, not this guy.
the interesting flip on this - is that it was clear during some of the discussion before the Padilla trial was headed up to SCOTUS - that Scalia was not in favor of a military tribunal for an american citizen, even one who met the combatant designation.
He has to make his liberal "bedfellows" happy with his reporting.
I probably should have barf-alerted the article.
Scalia dissented in Rasul v. Bush as well, and would not have found jurisdiction for Rasul.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia also dissented, and found that US Citizens who commit acts of war against the US should be tried under treason laws, not in military trials.
Some discussion at ScotusBlog, Justice Scalia Announces Opposition to Trials in Civil Courts for Alien Military Detainees. CJ Roberts has already recused, so with Scalia "in," there is a chance that the court will tie in the upcoming Hamdan case.
If it's not worth fighting without rules, it is not worth fighting at all.
Diplomacy is for the losers. Or the weak.
I'm afraid that even with Scalia voting we won't have enough votes. In Hamdi, only Scalia and Thomas dissented.
An interesting observation, but one that bears closer scrutiny.
I would hope that Scalia is intelligent enough to make a distinction between a real citizen, and one in name only: a CINO.
There is no question about native born and legal parents. The fuzziness arises from those who "adopt" citizenship for nefarious purposes, fraudulently using our own laws against us. Taking arms against "your" country clearly qualifies as citizenship fraudulently obtained and therefore null and void.
Scalia and Stevens joined in one dissent (challenge of enemy combatant status by a US citizen should be ajudicated in a court of law), and Thomas filed a separate dissent (the Presidents says the guy is an enemy combatant, and the courts should keep their nose out).
The majority didn't reach a conclusion as to Hamdi's status, nor did it hold that the hearing relating to enemy combatant status need occur in an Article III Court. My bulletpoint of the holding was:
Hamdi was remanded to the 4th Circuit, and it'll be up to that Court to read the tea leaves and craft a remedy that affords the Due Process that SCOTUS said was missing from the handling of Hamdi's detention.
Back at Iowa State in the early 60's that would have been a "snife", as I recall. Either that or a "barble snarf". The one of the two that didn't bite fart bubbles was the one with the fettish for girl's bicycle seats.
You expanded my knowledge!!! Thanks!!! :-)
LLS
Thank God for Scalia. Thank you, thank you, thank you! And for Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.