Scalia's recusal sought in Guantánamo case
By Charles Lane

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — On the eve of oral arguments in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late Monday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's remarks on March 8 to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, lawyer David Remes wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."

The case to be heard today — Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184 — is one of the most important terrorism-related cases to reach the court. It is a challenge by Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, now being held at Guantánamo Bay, to the legality of the military commission that seeks to try him for war crimes.

Military trials for terrorist suspects are a centerpiece of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy, but they have been criticized by human-rights activists, especially in Europe.

The retired officers are Brig. Gen. David Brahms, Brig Gen. James Cullen, Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, Rear Adm. John Hutson and Rear Adm. Donald Guter. They have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case opposing the military commissions, on the grounds that denying Geneva Conventions protections to detainees at Guantánamo Bay could result in their denial to U.S. troops by their captors abroad.

In his letter to the court, Remes said Scalia's reported reference to the Geneva Conventions was of particular concern to the retired officers as it is directly at issue in the case. Their brief supports the view of the petitioner, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, that the conventions apply to him and could entitle him to a court-martial trial like that which U.S. soldiers receive.

Other calls for Scalia's recusal came Monday from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil-rights organization, and from Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Court rules say that justices must recuse themselves in cases where their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." But it is up to each justice to make that decision. Court analysts said Monday it is unlikely Scalia will recuse himself from the case.

This is the third time in recent years that Scalia has faced pressure to recuse himself. In 2004, he recused himself from a case on the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, after speaking out on the case at a rally in Virginia.

Last year, he faced calls for his recusal in a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney after it became public that they had gone duck hunting together. In that case, Scalia refused to step aside.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002894066_scalia28.html

No one can make Scalia recuse himself, even though he should.

No one can make Scalia recuse himself, even though he should.

Recusal is usually reserved for actual conflicts of interest - having an opinion on a matter is rarely enough.

Having said that - for all you that complain that Supreme Court nominees never reveal much in Senate hearings - this is why.

That article doesn't fully qote what Scalia said. I believe a conflict of interest and predisposition for verdict came with this statement that followed:
++++++++++++++++++

"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," Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiberg, according to Newsweek. "Give me a break."

Asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have protections under international conventions, Scalia replied,
"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060326/ts_nm/rights_guantanamo_scalia_dc
+++++++++++++++++

The article sedan posted is severly lacking in context.

Asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have protections under international conventions, Scalia replied,
"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."

The question that brings to mind for me is;

....how does a son of a bitch making public statements THAT irrational and that ridiculous manage to pass the bar exam, much less get installed to the Supreme Court?!?!?

What is interesting is that Chief Justice Roberts did recuse himself because he participated in the original decision in the Circuit Court where the case was decided in the governments favor. This means that only eight justices will participate in the decision, and a tie is possible.

What is interesting is that Chief Justice Roberts did recuse himself because he participated in the original decision in the Circuit Court where the case was decided in the governments favor. This means that only eight justices will participate in the decision, and a tie is possible.Which is simply ridiculous because the only reason it got to SCOTUS is because Roberts refused to recuse himself from the case while he was being tapped for the court. As if one of the accusers looking at giving you a promotion isn't a conflict of interest...

What is interesting is that Chief Justice Roberts did recuse himself because he participated in the original decision in the Circuit Court where the case was decided in the governments favor. This means that only eight justices will participate in the decision, and a tie is possible.

I'm presuming the case came up from a lower court. If so, a tie would send it back and it would stand however that court had ruled. A win for Rumsfeld and a loss for america.

I'm presuming the case came up from a lower court. If so, a tie would send it back and it would stand however that court had ruled. A win for Rumsfeld and a loss for america.

Yes, the Federal Appeals Court ruled in favor of the governments position, and Chief Justice Roberts participated in that decision. That gave him a clear conflict of interest in hearing the same case in the Supreme Court.

It's also amazing the American generals are the ones saying his comments crossed the line. Soilders that he suppossedly pre-determining his decision for.

I also find the trend of Supreme Court Justices becoming media stars disturbing. Reporters are now assigned to follow Scalia around in the hope that he might say or do something controversial. It's fair to say that he enjoys and even encourages this attention. Judges should be known for how they rule in a court of law, not for taking public stands on issues. I know he has every right to do this but I think it shows a lack of, er, judgement when he does.

He was giving a talk. I would say thats a public event of interest. In fact reporters used to go to scaliais talks and his wanna be nazi ass would order them to delete their tapes. Then he would go grandstand and pretend he loves the 1st amendment....

BTW scalia also made an obscene gesture to a simple question. It is debated whether it was 'the finger' or an italian blow off. However the boston archdiocese has seen fit to fire the reporter for releasing the photograph. Maybe he just should have molested some children so he could keep his job....

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/boston-archdiocese-fires-photographer.html