Scalia Says Constitution Doesn't Cover Detainees

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Mar 27, 2006.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scalia27mar27,1,4634941.story

    Come on you people, give Antonin Scalia a break already!
     
  2. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    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?

    Newsweek
     
  4. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Scalia has no comment? Since when?

    Well, I can see you guys aren't going to give him a break!
     
  5. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    "You guys" IJ? I just report the news, I can't make it. At least not much anymore. ;)
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    I believe he was quoting a precedent from the famous case of United States v. Kit-Kat Bars.
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    :D :D :D
     
  8. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #8
    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?
     
  9. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    "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.
     
  10. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    It's not constructionism, strictly.
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    yeah, i don't think iraq or afghanistan are mentioned in the constitution.
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    as long as we're talking about the Class Act known as scalia... UP
     
  13. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Yikes. I wonder what happens to the photographer if he does publish the photo. Something else Sicilian?
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    Facial? Copper Migraine?
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    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.
     
  16. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Concrete galoshes?
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    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.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    let's find out.

    [​IMG]

    from the boston herald:
     
  19. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    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.
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    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.
     

Share This Page