Bin Laden chauffeur challenges Bush. Is the left siding with Bin Laden again?
In the upcoming issue of Newsweek the question of whether or not Justice Scalia should recuse himself from the upcoming Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, over at stop the ACLU;
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, 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 are causing quite an uproar. Many, especially on the left, are calling it grounds for recusal.
I love Scalia. I love the way he thinks, speaks and doesn't suffer fools. Oh and BTW, he is absolutely right except about being surprised by Europe. They have completely succumbed. They are sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off.
He won't recuse himself, he knows it's another strawman tactic of the left. DUBAI!
