Just had a chance to look at Scalia's dissent in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, now
online (see pp 50 to 78 of the 100 page pdf). Scalia dissented from the
majority opinion, citing 17th & 18th century English and Constitutional
history.
His dissent is amazing. The plurality of the SCOTUS argued that
Hamdi, a US citizen captured in Afghanistan, could continue to be
imprisoned so long as the Executive Branch granted him a hearing to
outline their reasons. Essentially, Ashcroft has to put on a
dog-and-pony show, and Hamdi stays locked up without charge. On the
bottom of page 75, Scalia said the court shouldn't be playing Mr. Fixit
to take away Hamdi's individual rights. According to the Constitution &
Scalia, Bush should either release Hamdi or try him for treason, OR Bush
should get the Congress to suspend the writ of habeus corpus. When I
read that Scalia had eviscerated Ted Olsen's arguments, I didn't realize
the extent of his disgust for W's unconstitutional 'enemy combatant' label.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf
Arrived late. Sorry. Don't see your retort, but the OP calls our gov't
a dog and pony show.
That is it? That is his response to Scalia? That the A.G. "put on a
dog and pony show"?
Hamdi is fighting to kill US as a combatant and you call that a dog
and pony?
What a maroon!
********
"Only one ambition is worthy of Islam,
to save the world from the curse of democracy:
to teach men that they cannot rule themselves
on the basis of man-made laws.
Mankind has strayed from the path
of God, we must return to that path
or face certain annihilation."
-- Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair
.
|
