Mudville Gazette

A MILBLOG

The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.

Prev | List | Random | Next Join Powered by RingSurf!

MORALE FUNDS

GROUND SUPPORT

The Fine Print Blah Blah Blah

The Mudville Gazette is written and produced by Greyhawk, the call sign of a real military guy currently serving somewhere in Iraq. Unless otherwise credited, the opinions expressed are those of the author, and nothing here is to be taken as representing the official position of or endorsement by the United States Department of Defense or any of its subordinate components. Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house.

I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.

Original content copyright © 2003 - 2008 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.

Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com

Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! « Open Post | Main | Open Post »

March 27, 2006

I Wonder What he Meant by That...

Greyhawk

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, 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.

Not quite what Europeans are used to hearing from Americans. Expect outrage to follow. Or not - either way that will be a barometer of how much people really care about jihaddis in Gitmo.

And regardless of whether he's a Supreme Court Justice or not, having a son in the battle gives him REAL ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY. There's no arguing against that.

Posted by Greyhawk at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) |

Show Comments Here (7) |

Hide Comments

It'll be interesting to read the eventual decision as it relates to non-uniformed combatants rights.

Posted by Soldier's Dad at March 27, 2006 09:24 PM

Let me start by saying that I love coming here and getting a point of view that the MSM doesn't give me.
I have to disagree a bit with the comment that having a son in the battle gives Scalia "real ultimate moral authority".
I mean, isn't this Cindy Sheehan's argument: I have a son who died so I have absolute moral authority here?
I'm always concerned whenever someone thinks that anyone has an "ultimate" anything. Especially in a case like this, it's easy to cede the moral authority and then, assume that the debate is over.

I happen to agree completely with Justice Scalia on this. It is crazy to assume that someone who gets captured on the battlefield becomes a civil defendant...and I agree with him because of his thinking, not because his son was there.

Posted by Mike at March 28, 2006 03:44 AM

"having a son in the battle gives him REAL ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY. There's no arguing against that. "

Nice.

Posted by Fred at March 28, 2006 08:19 AM

Actually, I think the fact that he is a justice on the Supreme Court would give him the ultimate authority over this issue. The fact that his son is risking his life in Iraq only gives him a unique perspective on the issue.

I agree with Scalia on this too. There is nothing that says in our constitution that a person captured outside of the borders of this country who is not a citizen should be afforded the same rights as an American. Our troops are over there fighting to protect our Constitution, I think we need to give them every resource possible.

Posted by andreww at March 28, 2006 11:56 AM

"having a son in the battle gives him REAL ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY. There's no arguing against that. "

I'm fairly certain this was an ironic slam on a certain Peace Mom, you ninnies. Really, someone needs to invent a sarcasm font already. It would nip quite a few internet arguments in the bud I'm sure.

Posted by Buck Sargent at March 28, 2006 12:29 PM

Bless Justice Scalia for speaking so bluntly - this is just perfect!

Posted by Barb at March 28, 2006 04:19 PM

You can always count on Scalia to give you an honest opinion - without regard to what is "politically correct." As a Supreme Court Justice he's dedicated his life to handing down law based on our Constitution - and he is a strict constitutionalist! I appreciate his candor and agree that we don't "owe" foreign terrorists a full civil jury trial just because they were caught on our battlefields. They were caught there because they wanted to kill our troops fighting for our freedom - the freedom of a civil trial being one of them. They have no respect for our values as a country so why do we owe them the rights of an American?

Posted by AnnaB at March 29, 2006 04:43 PM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(7) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)

More Books Here

March 27, 2006

I Wonder What he Meant by That...