No Recusal for Scalia

Scalia's Recusal Sought in Key Detainee Case
Retired Officers Say Justice's Impartiality Is in Question After Remarks on Combatants

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A06

On the eve of oral argument 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 yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks 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 Guantanamo 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, the lawyer, David H. 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 Guantanamo 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 M. Brahms, Brig Gen. James P. Cullen, Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, Rear Adm. John D. Hutson and Rear Adm. Donald J. 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 Guantanamo Bay could result in their denial to U.S. troops by their captors abroad. Scalia's speech was first reported by Newsweek's Web site on Sunday.

Newsweek quoted Scalia as describing European reaction to Guantanamo Bay as "hypocritical."

Talk about a red-herring...There is absolutely no reason for Scalia to recuse himself, this is just wishful thinking by those on the pro-al Qaeda Left to get Scalia off the case because they believe that his doing so will help their allies in the terrorist organizations. Scalia's opinion was well know prior to his speech from his dissents on the prior Rasul and Hamdi court cases. Even more absurd is the argument put forward by the officers listed above that U.S. troops might not receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions. When and by whom have American POW's ever been accorded those protections? Not one of Americas enemies have ever abided by those conventions, NOT ONE.

Now we are to believe that if only we treat the prisoners in Gitmo according to the Geneva Conventions, American POW's will suddenly be treated properly. These officers are either lying through their teeth, or are suffering from brain damage and alzheimer's disease.

Full Story: A Ludicrous Claim

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below