Gibson and Napolitano lavished praise on "our boy Scalia"
Fox News' John Gibson and Andrew Napolitano lauded U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia while discussing whether Scalia should recuse himself from a case involving a Guantánamo Bay prisoner after Scalia stated that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have no legal rights.
During the March 28 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson and Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano lauded U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia while discussing whether Scalia should recuse himself from the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case after Scalia stated, in a March 8 speech, that prisoners at the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have no legal rights. Gibson started the segment by saying that Napolitano was "throwing our boy Scalia under the bus" for arguing that Scalia should recuse himself from the case. Despite arguing for Scalia's recusal, Napolitano emphasized that he "love[s]" Scalia and that the Justice is a "great man."
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former chauffeur of Osama bin Laden, is challenging the legality of miltary commissions President Bush established in November 2001 to try detainees for alleged war crimes. In addition to questioning Bush's authority in setting up the commissions, critics have said they violate a detainee's rights under the Geneva Conventions and do not allow for a meaningful appeals process.
From the March 28 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing landmark arguments about the rights of Gitmo detainees today. Chief Justice John Roberts has recused himself from the case. He was on an appeals court that ruled against the defendant before he joined the high court. Now, some people want Justice Scalia to recuse himself, too. Here to talk about the issue, Fox News senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. So, first of all, you're throwing our boy Scalia under the bus.
NAPOLITANO: I am not throwing him under the bus.
GIBSON: You are throwing him under the bus. You know --
NAPOLITANO: He --
GIBSON: -- tell people what he said.
NAPOLITANO: OK. He -- he used words which, if they had been used by a trial court judge or an intermediate-level appellate judge, the person would have been removed from the court.
GIBSON: Now, he was --
NAPOLITANO: He said --
GIBSON: -- in Switzerland.
NAPOLITANO: He was in Switzerland. And he basically --
GIBSON: He gave a speech.
NAPOLITANO: Gave a speech about 10 days ago. And he basically said: "I've already decided this case. I've already decided that the government is right." Second question: "Why is that?" "Well, my son was in Afghanistan [Note: Scalia's son served in Iraq, not Afghanistan]."
GIBSON: But that isn't what he said.
NAPOLITANO: "And those guys that now want a trial shot at my son."
GIBSON: That is an interpretive version, Judge.
NAPOLITANO: Yeah. It's not literal.
GIBSON: He said -- he -- he was asked, "Do the prisoners at Gitmo deserve the Geneva Conventions, deserve a trial?" And he said no. "They were captured on the field of battle. I can do anything I want with them."
NAPOLITANO: Why -- why not, Mr. Justice?
GIBSON: Yeah. The second question was, well, you know, why not? He said, among other things, "They were shooting at my son."
NAPOLITANO: Yeah. So, look, here's the rule. If a judge or a justice has formed an opinion about a case, based upon some effect on the family member, you got to get off the case. In -- in this particular instance, there is no provision to force him off.
GIBSON: But the family member is 250,000 American troops, or 300,000, that have been through the area and gotten shot at by these guys.
And doesn't -- and your man, Scalia, you -- you like him.
NAPOLITANO: I love the guy.
GIBSON: All right, your man, Scalia --
NAPOLITANO: But when you go into a court, you expect the judge to have an open mind, not to have decided the case before it's even argued.
GIBSON: OK. But it is going to be argued. There are going to be very persuasive lawyers standing before him.
NAPOLITANO: It happened today.
GIBSON: If -- if they are good, they may convince him.
NAPOLITANO: But, remember, their job is not to change his mind from one position to another. Their job is to take him from a position of neutrality and win him over. It's a profound issue that they're talking about. Four hundred people in Guantánamo Bay filed complaints in federal district court, saying, hey, why am I here? The Congress then rewrote the law, saying, you don't have the right to file these complaints anymore. You first go through a military tribunal. If you lose, then you can file a complaint.
So, can the Congress take away their right to seek this relief midstream? That's what the Supreme Court has to discuss.
GIBSON: All right, if Scalia should recuse himself, must he?
NAPOLITANO: I think, morally, he must. Legally, he doesn't have to, because, legally, he is the court of last resort. If you're asking me, can the other justices on the court legally compel him to do so, the answer is no. That is an individual decision, unique to each justice. Back in the old days, when I was on a trial court in New Jersey, had I not recused myself, because I thought the outcome might affect my son or brother, my bosses would have kicked me off. But he has no bosses.
GIBSON: Well, once again, you're throwing our boy, Scalia, under the bus.
NAPOLITANO: He's a great man. He can deal with this.
GIBSON: Judge Andrew Napolitano, thanks.
GIBSON: But the family member is 250,000 American troops, or 300,000, that have been through the area and gotten shot at by these guys.
According to CNN:
Scalia, asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have protections under international conventions, gave the suggestion short shrift.
'It's crazy' "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," he said. Scalia's son, Matthew, served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.
([link to www.cnn.com]
So, he argues: 1) it is war they cannot use our constitution; 2) they shot at my son.
It is a pity that so many men are in prison, without any status. Even a fetus has more rights nowadays. Those prisoners should be trialed: if found quilty they should be locked away. If not: that will cost the USA a lot of money than.
It is realy Kafka to state that they are quilty because they are in Guantanamo, so they must have done something otherwise they would not have been there. Even if the US constitution does not apply, probably the UN rules will and they should be trialed at a UN court. That is not something to look foreward to.
It's not that they just deserve due process. The military tribunals are a farce. These people are being held and accused by the executive branch of the government. My understanding is that the executive (Bush administration) will appoint a judge who is also a member of the executive branch. The prosecution will also be executive branch appointees. The defense counsel will be a lawyer with the military (the executive branch). The appeals will be within the executive branch. The substantive and procedural rules will also be promulagated by the executive branch. How can this possibly be fair when one enity constitutes the prosecution, defense , judge and the jury?
Don't these people have the right to contend that a mistake was made? Isn't that the reason for a trial: because sometimes what appears to be the obvious isn't really where the truth lies.
I think Scalia will give Napolitano and MMFA the Sicilian Salute.
Probably would. His a boorish ass.
It is clear that Scalia is willing to give "the finger" to all of America.
What does the Rightwing suggest for dealing with the problem of "out of control" Justices?
Tom DeLay says, "Congress for many years has shirked its responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable. No longer."
Phyllis Schlafly says, "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, says a Supreme Court Justice "should be the poster boy for impeachment" and "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office this Justice, they ought to be impeached as well."
The House has impeached 11 federal judges, including former Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, but the Senate has only convicted and removed seven.
So, our "SOLUTION" to Scalia comes from the Rightwing. Impeach. Remove. Sound insane, fringe, radical? LOL. Consider those proposing it above.
...Antonin Scalia is a great man; he can take this.
After all, he has a lifetime appointment to a position of power in which he is accountable to no one. I'm sure a lesser Justice would quail in the face of this criticism, but not our boy -- he's one tough paisan, and no criticism is going to make him fear for his job.
Gibson is an ass.
Leather: I respect Scalia as an extremely intelligent and thoughtful jurist, although I disagree with his politics completely. I think he's a credit to the Supreme Court. Only internet bully-boys and tough guy poseurs would presume that Scalia would do anything so childish as "give the Sicilian salute" to anyone.
I agree about Scalia. I saw a talk he and Breyer gave on C-Span about foreign influence on the courts. I quickly understood why people had labelled him as brilliant. He's a compelling advocate for his side. Breyer is probably equally intelligent though didn't come off as nearly as cogent. Scalito is like Scalia without the charisma.
Hitler had it, too.
Scalia is a troglodyte.
Having grown up in a mafia town I know that Scalia did the little wave under the chin which basically means go away, not the more famed Italian salute.
The ignorant reporter was too stupid to look up Italian hand gestures or find an Italian to explain it to him.
Scalia ripped the Boston paper a new one in a letter today.
All judges are eccentric, Scalia just happens to have a little personality which is refreshing.
That gesture means "FU*K YOU" and EVERYONE knows it. To claim otherwise is just being dishonest. Of course, that's just what we'd expect from an absolute asshole like Scalia, and from you. He apparently thinks that the Geneva conventions are just baloney, 'cause "it's war" and "they shot at my son". This is what you 'thugs like to refer to as "Judicial Activism". His WHOLE JOB is to NOT have an opinion on these things.
Caught on tape: [link to news.bostonherald.com]
If by "personality" you mean "lousy excuse for a human being" then I agree with you- he shows LOTS of that.
We just had MONTHS of blather about how nominees for the Supreme Court couldn't comment on how they might rule in cases that might (hypothetically) come before them, not to mention temper tantrums from everyone on the right that anyone who even probed around the edges of that RIDICULOUS stonewall was out of line.
Scalia is a sitting Justice, and he is clearly telegraphing that he has made up his mind on what may be one of this century's most important cases: one that has the potential to condemn thousands of present and future persons to durance vile with no hope of redress.
If Scalia does not acknowledge this, if not by outright admitting his bias, but by recusing himself, he should be impeached. Period.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
In case you haven't noticed, our current batch of NeoCons believe that the RULES are for OTHERS. They are above following the rules they lay down for the mere commoners to follow.
If we were equals, this would be called "hypocricy".
However, since we are now dealing with royalty, it's called "the King's perogative". Bush does not believe the laws apply to Him. Scalia does not have to follow plebian rules set for lesser men. Both men behave as if they get special dispensation from God, just as royalty of old claimed divine direction, which grants that if these men DO it, it must be right and proper. They hold themselves as above suspicion, and criticism of their actions is tantamount to insulting the Almighty Creator ... whom they consult and believe they serve.
Whether this is true arrogance, or an overcompensation for feelings of inadequacy (and a thin skin), is irrelevant. We are a nation of LAWS, not men, and despite the power these men weild, they serve THE PEOPLE, and are ultimately answerable to US. This may come as a rude awakening.
Just what part of the phrases, "No Person", and "In all criminal prosecutions", are so difficult to understand that Americans need 9 old verbose blatherers wearing black satin moo moos to augur the Constitution's entrails to divine their original intents?
As to the applicability of Constituional edicts to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the 13th Amendment, Section 1 is transparently clear:
Does Guantanamo Bay exist within the set of places that is subject to the juristiction of the US Government?
Take these persons into an open court room, and using due process of law, convict them for their inhumane acts. The Bush Administration grinds the very document which legitimises their power under their shoes.
These are Rights Possessed by All Humans, and a just government would protect them, above all.
A tyrannical executive, a complicit legislature, an acquiescent judiciary...say good night America; the Dreamtime is Fading Away
"Does Guantanamo Bay exist within the set of places that is subject to the juristiction of the US Government?"
Clearly, the U.S. would argue that it does not as it is on Cuban soil. This case is not so straight forward as your post suggests in that there is a real question as to whether some of the detainees are subject to the benefits of the Geneva convention. Scalia however, should clearly recuse himself from the case after expressing that his mind was already made up on the matter. Thomas should as well since he tags along with Scalia in every other decision.
By that definition, then Gitmo would be subject to Cuban law. I don't think that even the Justice Department would argue that. But that's not even a consideration with respect to the detainees, unless they happen to commit a crime while at Gitmo.
The issue before the court is really one of jurisdiction as it relates to the reasons for taking the detainees into custody, most of which I understand to have occured in Afghanistan. The Justice Department is attempting to argue that the detainees are prisoners of war, not subject to jurisdiction and protection of civil courts. However, they also claim that the Geneva Convention does not apply since Al Qaeda is not a party to that agreement. (Al Qaeda is not even a recognized state for that matter.) Essentially, Justice wants to have it both ways, with the Executive establishing the courts and juries, i.e., essentially acting a judge, jury and executioner.
Therein lies the problem. With no outside oversight, even the best intentions cannot prevent the eventual abuse of such a system. Some Afghans may have already used the system for personal gain, with the U.S. acting as agent.