Scalia claims detainees have no rights

[mburbank]

Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights-Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek

03 April 2006 Issue

The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo 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.



A narrow reading of this would mean that Scalia only meant tey have no right to a jury trial, and was simply not answering the question he'd been asked. But even if you restric his response to only the question of a jury trial, doesn't this mean he should recuse himself from the upcoming Supreme court case on this subject? I'm asking seriously, for anyone who has more knowledge of the law then me. Is a Justice allowed to publicly dealre he has already decided on an issue before hearing speciffic arguments in a case?