Elaine Meinel Supkis
A group of retired generals who understand history and the reasons for the Geneva Conventions are demanding Scalia recuse himself from ruling on a Gitmo case. The idea that we need the rules of war to protect ourselves has been forgotten by the neo-fascists running America.
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A06On 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, like his fellow neo cons and religious cons, believes in exceptionalism. Namely, rules are for everyone else while he and his buddies can follow the satanic rule, "Do as you will." When Cheney took Scalia duck hunting before Scalia ruled in Dick's favor later, despite many calls to remove himself from the case of releasing the Oil/war conspiracy documents, Scalia poked us all in the eye and basically said, he can do as he pleases, nayayaya. Which is what Bush and Cheney say all the time, too. This is why our government is collapsing and why we are no longer a land of the brave and free but the land of the cowardly and enslaved.
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.
This is ridiculous. What war crimes did this poor man commit? Did he run over Laura Bush's ex boyfriend in Texas? Did he shoot a 78 year old lawyer in the face and then make him apologize to bin Laden for discombooblating him? Did he order torture at Gitmo? Did he sit on a general and smother him to death?
None of these crimes are his! He drove bin Laden around. Charging him with a crime is like charging Hitler's chambermaid with creating the Holocaust. Or putting Hirohito's sushi maker to death for feeding the emperor during WWII.
This is beyond asinine.
Which describes our war on terror, our approach to international laws and treaties and this is why I and millions of Americans keep calling for Bush to be impeached, arrested and tried at the Hague.
Scalia is openly Opus Dei.
Thomas, Roberts and Alito are very likely to be Opus Dei (via Father McCloskey).
Follow that thread, and their long-term goals become apparent.
Posted by: the dreaming ape | March 28, 2006 at 02:14 PM
Yes, he is part of Satanic Opus Dei. And is a conspiritor who hides his affiliations and intentions. He should be removed for a wide variety of reasons, chief of which is the unconstitutional ruling in Dec. 2000 of Bush Vs Gore. That one was anti American.
Posted by: Elaine Meinel Supkis | March 28, 2006 at 03:48 PM