Detainees Have NO Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind

[kpete]

Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind

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 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. 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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. so, just hypothetically,

does 'no rights' under either the US Constitution or the signed treaty obligations of the Geneva Conventions mean that Scalia believes that we could take every last one of these detainees and torture them to death? In what respect are we then different from the Saddam regime we have on trial in that kangaroo court in our green zone fortress in Baghdad?

Somebody needs to ask these asshats, with respect to torture and other abominations, just what the limits are. They need to be put on the record as approving the torture and killing of innocents.

[oneighty]

2. Personal opinion

trumps law?

And people argue that only lawyers should be judges.

180

[bowens43]

3. Typical right wing facist freedom hating fuck....

[Kadie]

4. Here is Yahoo! link if anyone want to rate this story...

Supreme Court justice said to slam detainee rights

54 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (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."

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060326/ts_nm/rights_guantanamo_scalia_dc_1

[AndyTiedye]

5. ** Isn't Complying for the Rules for P.O.W.'s Either!

If they are persons accused of a crime, they need a fair trial.
If they are prisoners of war, there are international conventions for the treatment of P.O.W.'s which are not being complied with.
(Those Geneva Conventions that our Attorney-General finds so "quaint").

[zestfolly]

6. Why hasn't he recused himself????????

Roberts did.

[Neil Lisst]

7. Ever since he got stiffed for Chief Justice, he's been off the leash

He was always a loose cannon, but now he's really out there.

Will no one in his earshot tell this pompous windbag off?

[Marie26]

8. Therefore, once the gov. detains you, you lose all rights.

Got it. The Constitution was just what you call "guidelines".

[zestfolly]

9. from bartcop

[0007]

10. LOL!!