| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
27 Mar 2006 11:46:03 AM |
| Object: |
Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in
a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo
detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the
accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about
some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at
the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
[http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv]
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." 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. Scalia did say, though, that he
was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
28 Mar 2006 12:25:15 AM |
|
|
In article <h19g2211kmf66ug4o5qgnc2p85qrrml8dq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in
a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo
detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the
accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about
some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at
the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
[http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv]
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." 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. Scalia did say, though, that he
was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
I don't think he has a choice. He must recuse himself.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
31 Mar 2006 04:41:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:25:15 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <h19g2211kmf66ug4o5qgnc2p85qrrml8dq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in
a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo
detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the
accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about
some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at
the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
[http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv]
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." 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. Scalia did say, though, that he
was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
I don't think he has a choice. He must recuse himself.
Fundies and/or Rethugnicans are the law, don't you know.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
01 Apr 2006 01:36:18 AM |
|
|
In article <bvbr225oh25s7v9ufuqf23qmkn1956n07j@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:25:15 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <h19g2211kmf66ug4o5qgnc2p85qrrml8dq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in
a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo
detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the
accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about
some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at
the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
[http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv]
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." 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. Scalia did say, though, that he
was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
I don't think he has a choice. He must recuse himself.
Fundies and/or Rethugnicans are the law, don't you know.
Well, I notice that he didn't. Like Louis XIV they believe that
something is legal if they say it is.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
02 Apr 2006 04:36:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:36:18 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <bvbr225oh25s7v9ufuqf23qmkn1956n07j@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:25:15 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <h19g2211kmf66ug4o5qgnc2p85qrrml8dq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in
a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo
detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the
accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about
some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at
the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
[http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv]
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." 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. Scalia did say, though, that he
was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
I don't think he has a choice. He must recuse himself.
Fundies and/or Rethugnicans are the law, don't you know.
Well, I notice that he didn't. Like Louis XIV they believe that
something is legal if they say it is.
Such is Christian Morality and Humility.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
02 Apr 2006 11:54:42 PM |
|
|
In article <oug0325g2nlko58b2df95a7ri4ac03tb4p@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:36:18 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <bvbr225oh25s7v9ufuqf23qmkn1956n07j@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:25:15 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <h19g2211kmf66ug4o5qgnc2p85qrrml8dq@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind
Newsweek
April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in
a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo
detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the
accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about
some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at
the University of Freiburg in Switzerland,
[http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv]
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." 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. Scalia did say, though, that he
was concerned "there may be no end to this war."
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
I don't think he has a choice. He must recuse himself.
Fundies and/or Rethugnicans are the law, don't you know.
Well, I notice that he didn't. Like Louis XIV they believe that
something is legal if they say it is.
Such is Christian Morality and Humility.
And don't forget class, as he told his opponents to go 'Cheney'
themselves recently in a church no less.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
04 Apr 2006 11:07:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 21:54:42 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <oug0325g2nlko58b2df95a7ri4ac03tb4p@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:36:18 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[]
The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member
of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk,
which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the
Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters
before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of
Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "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. "As
these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether
he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers,
a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would
create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in
Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme
Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment.
—Michael Isikoff
© 2006 Newsweek
I don't think he has a choice. He must recuse himself.
Fundies and/or Rethugnicans are the law, don't you know.
Well, I notice that he didn't. Like Louis XIV they believe that
something is legal if they say it is.
Such is Christian Morality and Humility.
And don't forget class, as he told his opponents to go 'Cheney'
themselves recently in a church no less.
Their 'class' is scraped from the bottom of a full outhouse pit.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
27 Mar 2006 08:12:23 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, stoney in episode
<h19g2211kmf66ug4o5qgnc2p85qrrml8dq@4ax.com>...
Scalia dismissed the idea that anybody has rights
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
I just love this one...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
27 Mar 2006 12:47:29 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we
want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit
again."
~President George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
03 Apr 2006 01:34:34 AM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
Much more fun, huh? For state terrorists like Sharon?
Scalia should be IMPEACHED for shooting his mouth off in Freiburg.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
Of course, bonehead, civil law makes provision for detention without
bail when there is a chance of flight.
--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we
want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit
again."
~President George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
01 Apr 2006 03:54:10 AM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
To Rube Goldberg:
If it's war, then why is the US violating the Geneva Conventions?
Bob Dog
-----
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community
is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological
design. We don't have such a theory right now, and
that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very
hard to know where to direct your research focus."
- Paul Nelson, creationist
and anti-science advocate
"Maybe he needs a new version of the Ten Commandments
-- George W. Bush's Ten Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal...votes.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...country.
Thou shalt not kill...for oil.
Thou shalt not take grammar...in vain."
- Margaret Cho
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
27 Mar 2006 02:03:37 PM |
|
|
In article <44283341.88E36DD2@yahoo.com> David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> writes:
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
The operative word there, of course, is "Trials".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
27 Mar 2006 02:34:13 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:e09gep$sn6$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <44283341.88E36DD2@yahoo.com> David Goldberg
<david_asbnll@yahoo.com> writes:
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the
U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was
"astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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,"
he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a
break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around
during the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann
Goering on bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from
now?
The operative word there, of course, is "Trials".
Poor example. The operative example would be one of the thousands of
German soldiers captured during the war. Only the terrorist fighters
don't even qualify for the sort of POW treatment that we accorded the
Germans, since their own commanders refuse to live up to the minimal
standards required by the Geneva Conventions. And yes, it's a two-way
street. And no, we don't have to set an example. And no, I don't give a
damn if you think we're putting ourselves on their level.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A recent study...has concluded that when whiny kids grow up, they
become conservatives. When they don’t, they become liberals." - Liberal
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
31 Mar 2006 04:39:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:47:29 -0800, David Goldberg
<david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
Shrub Justice=Zero.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
You really are a cretin, *****-for-brains.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
27 Mar 2006 08:22:27 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, David Goldberg in episode
<44283341.88E36DD2@yahoo.com>...
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
They're not even giving the people in Gitmo the rights afforded the
defendants at Nuremberg. The Nazis got a trial. Saddam Hussein is getting
a trial. The people at Gitmo have become unpersons. We're not following
the military code of justice, we're not following the Constitution, we're
not following the Geneva convention, we're not following *anything but the
"right" of the President to hold people indefinitely because he says so.
We're "spreading democracy" by asserting the power to extinguish human
rights.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
I just love this one...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
28 Mar 2006 09:15:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, David Goldberg in episode
<44283341.88E36DD2@yahoo.com>...
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
They're not even giving the people in Gitmo the rights afforded the
defendants at Nuremberg. The Nazis got a trial. Saddam Hussein is getting
a trial.
Did every single Nazi soldier get a trial?
No?
Ooops.
--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want
to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scalia's a cretin of the first water |
03 Apr 2006 01:31:43 AM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, David Goldberg in episode
<44283341.88E36DD2@yahoo.com>...
stoney wrote:
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S.
Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at
the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "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," he says on a tape of the talk
reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break."
He's right. Military justice has always been different from civilian
justice.
I wonder what today's Democrats would be saying if they were around during
the Nuremberg Trials? Maybe we should have released Hermann Goering on
bail? Give him a summons to show up in court 90 days from now?
They're not even giving the people in Gitmo the rights afforded the
defendants at Nuremberg. The Nazis got a trial. Saddam Hussein is getting
a trial.
Did every single Nazi soldier get a trial?
No?
Ooops.
No, most were held under the Geneva Convention, in rather comfortable
camps, until the end of hostilities. Then they were released and sent
home.
None were detained without trial for FOUR YEARS.
None were punished without trial, except for occasional battlefield
shootings, most of which were punished under the UCMG.
--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want
to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
