Scalia claims detainees have no rights

[mburbank]

Okay, I'm not even goiung off on that tangent. It deserves a thread of it's own.

Instead, I offer up the following proof that my reaction to Scalias statement was not so outlandish or naive.

Scalia's Recusal Sought in Key Detainee Case
By Charles Lane
The Washington Post

Tuesday 28 March 2006

Retired officers say justice's impartiality is in question after remarks on combatants.

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."


You may still disagree, but it can no longer said that my thoughts on the matter are strictly a matter of not understanding the law.