What a shining example of judicial impartiality

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
A US Supreme Court justice has been quoted as saying that Guantanamo detainees do not have the right to be tried in civil courts.


Newsweek magazine said it had heard a tape of a recent talk given by Antonin Scalia in which he made these comments.

The report comes as the court prepares to hear a challenge by a Guantanamo detainee against US military tribunals.

The case is considered an important test of the Bush administration's handling of its war on terror.

Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan - Osama Bin Laden's former driver - will argue that President George W Bush does not have the constitutional right to order these military trials.

The US government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case.

'Hypocritical'
In a speech to Swiss law students at the University of Freiburg on 8 March, Justice Scalia dismissed the idea that detainees had rights under the US constitution or international conventions, Newsweek reported.

"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 is quoted as saying.


"Give me a break."

Asked whether Guantanamo detainees have any rights under international conventions, Justice Scalia reportedly answered:
"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs.

"I had a son (Matthew Scalia) 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."

Mr Scalia is also quoted as saying he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Guantanamo.

Legal experts quoted by Newsweek said Mr Scalia's comments could compromise his position in the Hamdan case, even though he did not refer directly to it.

Eight judges are expected to start hearings in the Hamdan case on Tuesday. Chief Justice John Roberts has decided not to take part in the hearings because he ruled on the case while he was an appeals court judge.
About 14 out of the estimated 490 Guantanamo detainees have been deemed eligible for hearings under the commissions.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4848834.stm
 
I'm confused, are the detainees prisoners of war or terrorists? If they are POWs, don't they have rights under international conventions?
 
They aren't POW's.

POW's are uniformed members of a nation's armed forces at the absolute minimum. Technically POW's in undeclared wars have no rights. This was the case of U.S. servicement in Vietnam and Korea.

They are ununiformed combatants. That is their legal status.

By the rules of the Geneva Convention they can be held as spies or even shot summarily. They have no legal standing.

Here's a historical example of a perfectly legal treatment of an ununiformed enemy combatant.
300px-Nguyen.jpg


Anything these people receive beyond a bullet in the head is merciful treatment according to international law and the Geneva Accords.
 
I would guess that Scalia knows US law a little bit better than the BBC, the rest of europe, and more than any of us here, too.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if another country invaded the United States as police action and captured ununiformed civilians and took them back to their country (or held them in another country), wouldn't they be considered hostages? Would the US consider this a terrorist act?

Were these detainees (ununiformed combatants) all armed and considered a threat to our soldiers when they were captured?
 
[quote name='redline']Just playing devil's advocate here, but if another country invaded the United States as police action and captured ununiformed civilians and took them back to their country (or held them in another country), wouldn't they be considered hostages? Would the US consider this a terrorist act?

Were these detainees (ununiformed combatants) all armed and considered a threat to our soldiers when they were captured?[/quote]

Just under 10% were captured by americans, the rest were handed over by bounty hunters and such, primarily in areas where leaflets were dropped offering substantial rewards for taliban and al qaeda members. But, to be fair, they do have pretty good evidence on these people. For example, one guy was wearing a casio brand watch! Now, if that's not evidence then I don't know what is.

They also have a retarded detainee. They were going to release him, but they were afraid that he might run for president.

I would guess that Scalia knows US law a little bit better than the BBC, the rest of europe, and more than any of us here, too.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked they speak english in the u.k. They're reporting on what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top