Monday, March 27, 2006

Scalia: War is war

Seemed obvious to me. They sit for the duration. All it takes is fatwa of surrender from Bin Laden. From Yahoo,
"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," Scalia said during a talk on March 8 at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, Newsweek magazine reported.

"Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution," Scalia said, according to the www.scotusblog legal website, adding that "nobody has ever thought otherwise."

"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs," Scalia told the audience.

"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."

The conservative judge's son, Matthew, fought in the Iraq war.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

If it is war, shouldn't the u.s.a. follow international protocols governing prisoners of war (geneva convention)?

Scott said...

If it is war, shouldn't the u.s.a. follow international protocols governing prisoners of war (geneva convention)?

Exactly. If they're not POWs who have rights under the Geneva Convention and they aren't US citizens, with rights in our country, then, apparently, they're not actually people. I guess they just don't really exist.

Scalia likes to claim he pays attention to the actual words written, so maybe he should take a quick look at this here sentence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

I guess where it says "all men" Justice Scalia reads "American citizens."

Jeff said...

Under the United States Constitution, which Scalia allegedly upholds, ONLY Congress has the authority to declare war. Congress has not officially and legally done so against Afghanistan, Iraq, or the nebulous entity "terrorism" (or how one would even do so in that case), the first two of which are classified as military engagements (explicitly not the same thing as a war, under the law), and the last of which seems to be a figment of rhetorical flourish. Therefore we are not at war under the Constitution, and Scalia is just plain wrong, period.

What gives us the right to complain about how insurgent Iraqies treat our citizens, when we detain, torture, and in some cases kill citizens from foreign countries who were not captured on a battlefied and whom we are not legally at war with? It is just simple hypocrisy.

Bill Baar said...

Check out the Geneva Convention.

A combatant who fights out of uniform isn't entitled to anything.

They've violated the the conventions rules of war by jeprodizing civilians by looking like civilians.

War declared or not...

It's pretty specific on that.

donchicago48 said...

The 'enemy combatants' are not themselves signatories to the Geneva Convention, a requirement that makes them outside the convention. Nor is the USA a signatory to all parts of the protocol. Justice Scalia is entirely correct.
While nobody denies that people possess "certain unalienable rights", that does not mean they can commit acts of Islamofascist terrorism and war with impunity against lawful American military personnel or civilian targets. By doing so, they become illegal combatants and are subject to precisely the treatment they have received.
If you allege that prisoners have been tortured at Guantanimo, show us the legal proof or shut up. Hint: The deceptive statements of trained al qaeda terrorists committing 'al taqiyya' do not count. Eyewitnesses, including Muslims who have acted as liasons to the prisoners, have offered no such testimony. On the contrary, the US treatment of the Guantanimo prisoners has been humane and respectful of their religion, culture, and medical condition. In return, the prisoners regularly assault their guards with mixtures of various bodily fluids and wastes, hardly a civilized act, but entirely expected given the source.
One must ask anyone who blames the victims of Islamist terrorism and apologizes for Islamist terrorists just exactly where their loyalties lie and why they feel compelled to defend those who seek to commit mass-murder against innocent US citizens.