traitor Justice Antonin Scalia continues lying

[ensho]

http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2008/guantanamo_data_reveals_61708.htm


SETON HALL LAW REPORT: DEPT. OF DEFENSE DATA REVEALS NO RELEASED GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEE EVER ATTACKED ANY AMERICANS


-snip-

On June 12, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion on the ruling stated that “t least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.” The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The “30” number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely.

Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research commented, “As lawyers and judges we have an obligation to be careful with our facts. The notion that 30 detainees ‘returned to the battlefield’ was disproved a year ago. It is distressing that Justice Scalia in Boumediene was not more careful in such an important matter, especially since he was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him.”

-snip-

Joshua Denbeaux, senior fellow and co-author of the report, stated, “A Supreme Court ruling that includes patently inaccurate information diminishes the Court’s credibility and tarnishes the international reputation of the highest court in the United States. Just as disturbing, DoD seems incapable of producing credible information about what has actually happened to former Guantánamo detainees. If the decision to release detainees had been made by the courts, rather than political appointees of DoD, America would be safer.”
-snip-
---------------------------


why should he care what he says - he thinks his behind is safe forever.

hey, he was a successful 2000 coup d'etat enabler - and has so far got away with it.

[whistle]

1. Scalia's lying is as predictable as a bear shitting in the woods

[zanne]

2. I'd like to know why....

David Souter has been called "too liberal" but Scalia isn't called "too conservative". (I don't mean on DU; I mean in the MSM)

[Buzz Clik]

3. Someone in the MSM called Souter too liberal? Who?

God knows Roberts and Alito have been discussed as being too conservative during their nomination process, but not since.

[Buzz Clik]

4. The title of this OP is pure bullshit.

Traitor? Jesus fucking Christ. Right out of the Karl Rove book of "How To Be An Asshole."

And let's relax with the "lying" claim. Scalia was able to document his claim. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that Scalia knowingly cited outdated information, he was simply misinformed, not lying.

The hysteria at DU grows daily.

[ensho]

8. thank you - gave me a lol moment

nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. SC Justices shouldn't be "misinformed"

Their job is to BE informed. They have huge staffs dedicated to research, and something as simple as investigating the basis of the claim should have been done, at the very least, to ensure that his opinion was based on reality and not on conjecture. The fact that he did not do so shows that he is either incompetent or purposefully deceitful in his argument.

Pulling out the "plausible deniability" card is what is right out of the Karl Rove play book.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Quoting a outdated reference is "plausible deniability"? And, by the way, that isn't Rovian.

Scalia is hideous and an embarrassment to his court and this country. Calling him a liar in indefensible, and the traitor comment is just silly.

We can dislike or even despise people without pushing our reactions to them into the realm of ridiculous.

[Annces]

5. A good mafia type guy

Lies are his life.

[Snotcicles]

6. My favorite Oxymoron is. "Justice Scalia"

I think Lionel came up with that one.

[treestar]

7. It has nothing to do with the law, even if true

This "justice" is incompetent. He doesn't follow the law, actually citing the political "arguments" of the administration.