Misterimpatient

The point of this comes later. Sorry.

Newsweek reports Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia basically outed himself on the matter of Gitmo detainees. To quote the Newsweek piece:

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.”

Yes but…

You have to read the whole piece to get this straight. I agree that a soldier captured on a battlefield *IS* entitled to the full protection of the Geneva convention. They are not entitled to jury trials or the full protection of our constitution, that would be crazy. Few people however, believe that the Gitmo detainees are soldiers captured on a battlefield. Nor do they believe these people are terrorists. A category of person who, according to the Bush folks are entitled to less protection then even the Geneva convention provides.

I feel like I know enough about human nature to believe that if you offer a bounty for terrorists, you’re going to get some terrorist and a whole lot of people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Think about it. You’re a warlord in the mountains somewhere and you want to reinforce your strength and power. Unless the terrorist are working against you (un-likely), who are you going to turn in to the American forces? Terrorist or a local do-gooder who is trying to make your life miserable? If it’s money you’re after, you’ll turn in any bumpkin walking down the road. Remember who we’re dealing with here. This is a society that looks the other way while 14 year old girls are kidnapped and forced into prostitution.

Nope, sorry, the sad lot at Gitmo are almost certainly more bumpkin then terrorist. In any case, the lot in charge of the executive branch cannot be trusted to care one way or the other and they certainly cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

So what rights are the Gitmo detainees entitled to? Beats me. At a minimum, I would say Geneva convention rights but probably something beyond that to actually determine if there really was just cause to capture and then continue to hold them.

So, where does that leave us? We have Mr. Justice Scalia having already stated in public his views as they directly pertain to the upcoming Hamden v. Rumsfield arguments. How can he possibly pretend to be open minded when listening to the arguments? I can’t imagine. Seems to me it is time for him to recuse himself.

Now, can you imagine a tied vote in this case? Oh man, I can’t wait!

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 9:41 am under Justice, sometimes