Friday, June 13, 2008

Supreme Court wackiness

I know I'm just some guy, but this seems wrong (from Scalia's dissent):
My problem with today's opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court's intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.
I thought that Guantanamo was considered US territory?
It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one.
That doesn't prove the threat serious, it only proves that law enforcement takes it seriously.
The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic.
Seems to me that expedient justice for all is a time honored legal principle. How can we claim to stand for anything if not that?

You can't invent a special type of non-war so that you can rewrite the rules. When we deny any kind of justice to those taken into our custody, we demean what we (claim to) stand for.


At Friday, June 13, 2008 7:40:00 PM CDT, Blogger gc said...

I also forgot to mention- if we're so sure these are "bad guys", we ought to have piles of criminal charges to stick on them, shouldn't we?

At Friday, June 20, 2008 8:29:00 AM CDT, Blogger cljo said...

I'll play devil's advocate, even though I tend to agree with you.

In your first Scalia quote: but they were captured abroad by the military. Did habeus corpus ever apply to the thousands of German POW's housed in the United States during WWII? Should it have? I would say probably not. I think Scalia is talking about where they were captured and under what circumstances (war) ... not where they happened to be housed.

At Friday, June 20, 2008 8:29:00 AM CDT, Blogger cljo said...


At Friday, June 20, 2008 8:36:00 AM CDT, Blogger gc said...

Yes, but they were captured as bona-fide POWs, and under the rules of the Geneva convention. Which giver prisoners certain rights

Bush is trying to not follow either law, and that's my problem. "They're terrorists! They'll get nothing and like it!"


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home