Home arrow Commentary arrow Editorial arrow Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent
Jun 24 2008
Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent | Print |  E-mail
Editorial
By Marjorie Cohn   

Translation

Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus DissentImage

To bolster his argument that the Guantánamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.

According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely."

The largest possible number of detainees who could have "returned to the fight" is 12; however, the Department of Defense has no system for tracking the whereabouts of released detainees. The only one who has undisputedly taken up arms against the United States or its allies, "ISN 220," was released by political officers of the DoD against the recommendations of military officers.

Scalia bolstered his hysterical claim that the Boumediene decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" with stale information that was proven to be false one year ago. Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Center, said, Scalia "was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him."

The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the Guantánamo detainees were entitled to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. More than 200 men who have been held for up to six years and have never been charged with a crime, will now have their day in court. Many were snatched from their homes, picked up off the street or in airports, or sold to the U.S. military by warlords for bounty.

Scalia, who sits on the highest court in the land, has acted as a loyal foot soldier for the executive branch of government.

Marjorie Cohn,  MWC News Magazine senior editor, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Cohn is the author of, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.
Other articles by this author :.

Visit her web site at: http://www.marjoriecohn.com/


This_Category
Category:: Editorial

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 901

Comments (2)
RSS comments
1. 24-06-2008 21:08
We need, in the post-revolution system, a set of mechanisms to remove people like this from public office. Not just a matter of public opinion, the law is above public opinion, nor a system of witch-hunts and McCarthy-ite trials and ideological purges, but a system capable of identifying and removing someone quite clearly lacking integrity and a commitment to objectivity and the high standing of the judicial profession. 
This man should never have got where he is - but then neither should Bush. It\'s all a reflection on the poor health of the present system.
2. 25-06-2008 00:11
I agree with Mr. Jasson
During the course of Scalia's career as judge on the U.S. Supreme Court, I've heard many of his remarks and review of different cases. He comes across as condescending, sarcastic, and belittling of issues he feels frivolous and a waste of his time. Some he thinks are a big joke and preposterous. Much of his remarks are off the wall and not pertinent with the case. He intimidates the witnesses by ridiculing them and professing that his opinion is omnipotent over all the judges or anyone elses. I could see his stature more as in a District Traffic Court rather than the U.S. Supreme Court. His demeanor and conduct merits that than the highest court in the country. He is too subjective and filled with self-aggrandizement to be of any use. He is not there to make up new laws but to enforce the laws according to the U.S. Constitution. The Code of Federal Regulations should be quite explicit in interpreting the laws.
Tane

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:



Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Marjorie Cohn Guantánamo Justice Scalia Habeas Corpus
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: