Scalia Says Constitution Doesn't Cover Detainees

[IJ Reilly]

His speech, reported by Newsweek, comes before justices hear a foreign inmate's case.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the U.S. Constitution did not protect foreigners held at America's military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia also told the audience at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland that he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to the prison, said this week's issue of Newsweek. The comments came weeks before justices were to take up an appeal from a detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

Justices will hear arguments Tuesday on Salim Ahmed Hamdan's claim that President Bush overstepped his constitutional authority in ordering a military trial for Hamdan — the former driver of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden — held at the prison for nearly four years.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees could use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Scalia disagreed with the ruling, and in the recent speech asserted that enemy combatants had no legal rights.

"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," Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying. "Give me a break."

Scalia reportedly was challenged by an audience member in Switzerland about whether Guantanamo detainees had protection under the Geneva or human rights conventions.

Newsweek reported that Scalia replied, "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's son Matthew served in Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scalia27mar27,1,4634941.story

Come on you people, give Antonin Scalia a break already!

[jsw]

POWs are such a pain. Why give them rights? Maybe we should just shoot them instead of dealing with the expense of housing them. It would be different, maybe, if we were a world superpower, trying to show the world the right way to deal with people captured during wartime. But we're not - we're just a bully.

[Sayhey]

There is a move afoot to pressure Scalia to recuse himself from the Hamdan case because of his remarks. Justices aren't supposed to make up their minds before they hear the case. Of course, Scalia is the only one who can make the decision on recusal, so what are the odds?

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

[IJ Reilly]

Scalia has no comment? Since when?

Well, I can see you guys aren't going to give him a break!

[Sayhey]

Scalia has no comment? Since when?

Well, I can see you guys aren't going to give him a break!

"You guys" IJ? I just report the news, I can't make it. At least not much anymore. ;)

[Thomas Veil]

"Give me a break."I believe he was quoting a precedent from the famous case of United States v. Kit-Kat Bars.

[Sayhey]

I believe he was quoting a precedent from the famous case of United States v. Kit-Kat Bars.

:D :D :D

[CanadaRAM]

That's interesting, I thought the reason the Geneva Convention on treatment of POWs was not applicable was because these people were defined as "illegal combatants" and not prisoner soldiers captured in a war (and certainly not random male civilians caught in a scoop up of everyone in the area, heavens no.)

Now they are POWs when it is convenient to call them that?

[Thanatoast]

"War is war"? That's funny, I don't remember Congress passing a declaration of war. Without a formal state of war, where is the president getting all these war-time powers from? Maybe Scalia forgot that minor detail.

[IJ Reilly]

"War is war"? That's funny, I don't remember Congress passing a declaration of war. Without a formal state of war, where is the president getting all these war-time powers from? Maybe Scalia forgot that minor detail.

It's not constructionism, strictly.

[zimv20]

It's not constructionism, strictly.
yeah, i don't think iraq or afghanistan are mentioned in the constitution.

[zimv20]

as long as we're talking about the Class Act known as scalia... UP (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060327-100356-7854r)

Justice Scalia flips the finger in church

BOSTON, March 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

He was attending a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and afterward was the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers' Guild luncheon.

[IJ Reilly]

Yikes. I wonder what happens to the photographer if he does publish the photo. Something else Sicilian?

[pseudobrit]

Yikes. I wonder what happens to the photographer if he does publish the photo. Something else Sicilian?

Facial? Copper Migraine?

[solvs]

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 wonder how he'd feel if it was his son that was the POW. I guess since those evil Iraqis are torturing people that means we get to do it too. Not that we're anything like them mind you, we're still the good guys (I guess), we just don't have to follow the law because we don't feel like it. Funny, but last I checked, this is why my friends in the military don't believe in torturing captured enemies. Something about "doing unto others" or something. Not to mention the whole "humane/human rights" thing liberals are always whining about.

Oh, and no one can get mad when we do anything like this because it's not like we get mad when they do it to us.

[IJ Reilly]

Facial? Copper Migraine?

Concrete galoshes?

[miloblithe]

as long as we're talking about the Class Act known as scalia... UP (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060327-100356-7854r)

That sounds like the onset of senility--people tend to lose a bit of their ability to self-sensor.

Of course, senility and his ability to process information aren't really an issue since he ideologically pre-judges all cases anyway.

[zimv20]

Yikes. I wonder what happens to the photographer if he does publish the photo. Something else Sicilian?
let's find out.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/scaliaflip-797897.jpg

from the boston herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=132848&format=&page=1):

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

[IJ Reilly]

Charming.

The worst part about it is, to many conservatives, Scalia's "bad boy" persona makes him a hero. The fact that he sits on the highest court in the land, but seems to lack a basic sense of decorum, doesn't even register. He may be a schnook, but he's our schnook.

[solvs]

Charming.
When a conservative does it, it shows how strong they are. When a liberal does it, it's because they lack morals and are petty. Hypocrisy at it's finest.