Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - 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."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk, which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "This is clearly grounds for recusal," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. "I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him—without hearing the arguments."
Other experts said it was a closer call. Scalia didn't refer directly to this week's case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, though issues at stake hinge in part on whether the detainees deserve legal protections that make the military tribunals unfair. "As these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers, a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
Contributors
Links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(1766)
-
▼
March
(153)
- The Road to Dubai - New York TimesThe New York Tim...
- Ned Lamont: the unlikely insurgent
- Immigration Follies
- What Bush knew, when he knew it
- "Saddam chose to deny inspectors"
- Five minutes to midnight
- Poll: Opposition to Gay Marriage Declining
- Moment of Truth
- "Latino Giant" Awakens
- Democrats To Unveil "Real Security" Plan
- Lieberman faces tough fight
- Progressive vision for all of the Americas
- Rich Yet Broke
- McCain's embrace, Halliburton's profits and Tom De...
- Rove, "Out of touch."
- Fw: "I think we will be here forever", says a U.S....
- The White House shake-up that wasn't
- Impeachment? Hell, no. Impalement.
- Rove "Cooperating"
- Rumsfeld and the Big Picture
- Detainees' Rights-Scalia Speaks His Mind
- Woman With Perfect Memory Baffles Scientists
- North of the Border - New York TimesThe New York T...
- Anti-War Groups Monitored
- That's Sicilian!
- The Voice of Fear and the Voice of Hope
- On Torture and Being Good Americans
- Does This Mean Saddam Wasn't Responsible for 9/11?
- "Crashing The Gate"
- Bush Makes Iraq the Vital Reason for his Impeachme...
- Bush backlash
- Shiite Death Squads Out of Control
- Solving Cuba's Katrina Donation Problem
- Bush Wants to Make IMF and World Bank Even Worse
- The Procrastinator-in-Chief
- Look Who's Talking!
- Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
- Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder
- NSA Could've Monitored Lawyers' Calls
- "Nonprofit" Profits
- Feingold Stands Alone Again When Standing on Princ...
- Retraining Laid-Off Workers, but for What?
- Letter to the Secretary - New York Times
- But They Voted For This Government....
- Good Versus Evil Isn't A Strategy
- Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement
- Fw: Outsourcing
- How long can you tread water?
- Downtime with Dick
- Apocalyptic President
- Rumsfeld shows no sign he's ready to leave
- Changing the Script
- The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
- No Light in the Tunnel
- Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges
- Criminalizing Illegal Immigration
- What Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Have Wrought
- Liberators?
- Unstoppable?
- Fighting the Wrong War
- The President Still in Denial
- Why Cheney won't go
- The president and the straw man
- America's Blinders
- The Gall of Bush
- Bernie Sanders Interview
- Lawmakers get out of the Hous
- The president's greatest hits
- Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
- Shame
- Reminds me of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Amer...
- Fw: Entering the Fourth Year of War and Occupation...
- "Don't talk about it; be about it."
- Meanwhile . . .
- How to spot a baby Conservative
- Carlos Santana Speaks Out Against Bush
- The Democrats . . . Still Ducking
- Rumsfeld Is "Absolutely Crazy"
- Still Optimistic About Iraq? You Just Might Be a F...
- Rewriting the Science
- Worst Presidency in History
- Huh? Feingold's the Careless, Reckless One?
- The Iraq War: Three Years Later
- The battle to ban birth control
- Adios IMF
- Bush vs. Clean Air Act
- An A for Vendetta
- Bush vs. Clean Air Act
- "Hanoi Jane"
- Three Years and Counting
- Task Force 6-26
- Digby Speak
- The Last Days of the Ocean
- What Might Have Been
- Losing Ground
- Clear and Present Dangers
- Three Years Later
- More Rough 'n' Ready Russ
- The "Long War"? Oh, Goodie
- The New York Times Shills Again
-
▼
March
(153)
No comments:
Post a Comment