The Lady Speaks

Should Scalia Recuse Himself?

As my daughter would say: 'Ya think?!'

Did Justice Scalia miss the part of law school that tells you judges are supposed to remain open and impartial, especially before hearing arguments? (In public, at least.) Apparently so.

From Newsweek:

[…] 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. Army in Iraq.


'This is clearly grounds for recusal,' said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. 'I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him—without hearing the arguments.'

Other experts said it was a closer call. Scalia didn't refer directly to this week's case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, though issues at stake hinge in part on whether the detainees deserve legal protections that make the military tribunals unfair.



March 27, 2006 - Posted by | Courts, Crime, Iraq, Law, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized, War


  1. Get a life. These are not criminals, they are the ENEMY. Got it? They are entitled to nothing but food and water. Why would you want give away your liberty?

    Comment by Toby | March 27, 2006 | Reply

  2. If American troops can kill (over 50 died
    from interrogation/torture) and torture
    without any concern for human rights or the
    long-standing Genaeva Conventions, then
    what can American soldiers who are captured
    in the future expect? And why all the den-
    unciations over the years about “brainwashing”
    by the North Koreans or alleged torture by
    North Vietnamese of captured U.S. pilots? The
    truth is that the armies of the USA has been
    guilty for years of this behavior in various
    wars of conquest. Now, they don’t pretend to
    to any real degree to deny it, and claim to
    have carved out some sort of new legal inter-
    national conventions to justify it. This is a
    dangerous new stance, which will result in real
    murder and torture of Amercan soldiers.

    Comment by Komboa | March 27, 2006 | Reply

  3. Toby: I have no intention of giving up my liberties, but King George and the Republican Congress are doing their level best to take them away, with things like the Patriot Act(s) and a mass of signing statements that negate the very laws enacted.

    America should never lower itself to the level of its enemies.

    Komboa: Good point. What our government does to detainees will be done to our military personnel in the future.

    Instead of gaining respect for our humane and just treatment of even the worst of our enemies, we are losing face in every corner of the globe.

    Comment by PA_Lady | March 27, 2006 | Reply

  4. Toby, they aren’t always the enemy, which is the point. Simply because someone is of a different nationality or religion doesn’t make them guilty.

    Comment by Brian | March 27, 2006 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: