.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

21st Century Lesbian Trailer Trash

These are the mad musings of a middle aged woman, dyke, nurse, poet. I have a dog, a cat, a mobile home, and delusions of grandeur.

Name:
Location: California, United States

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Warm Fuzzies from the Military

Unlikely title, I know. And it's not exactly the military. It's the retired military. But once a soldier always a soldier, right? Semper Fi and all that.

It would seem that these retired military officers want Justice Scalia to recuse himself from 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...

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...

Apparently, this is not a first for the honorable Mr. Scalia who twice before has been asked to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases. Are we surprised? Hell no! Unlike the aforementioned retired officers, Scalia has a particularly narrow view of the Constitution, of the United States, of the world in general, and of the concept of freedom and personal rights specifically.

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. [emphasis mine]

Mr. Scalia must have failed SandBox 101 wherein children learn that turnabout is fair play. Rules may be made to be broken but you most likely will pay for that. Scalia, as he has done in the past, will probably not recuse himself from the case.

But thanks to these gentlemen who have filed a friend of the court brief, a fair amount of credence may be given to the opposing argument. Toying with the Geneva Convention could have dangerous consequences for the United States, its citizens, and its military personnel.

Just say NO to Antonin Scalia.

~from an article by Charles Lane in the Washington Post, March 28, 2006

Kinja, the weblog guide

4 Comments:

Blogger ~ nellenelle said...

And there opinions matter not to George. He doesn't care.

4:06 PM PST  
Blogger Cheryl said...

I was outraged in 2004 over Scalia's refusal to recuse himself after his duck hunting trip with Cheney. However, when I heard his legal argument for his refusal, which I can find nowhere on the internet right now, it made sense to me and I grudgingly concurred.

However, after just reading this article, (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20040205.html I now question my rationale. He's one slippery bugger, isn't he? Washington is like a city of snakes these days!

I find it highly amusing that my verification letters right now are "phnzt." ; )

8:45 PM PST  
Blogger NursePam said...

rofl @ phnzt!

Mine are inussrpy..

I kNow U [are] So SyRuPY? Should be SLiPperY.

*heh*

6:41 AM PST  
Blogger Cheryl said...

ROFL..."Syrupy" is good!

7:35 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

casino poker chips
real clay poker chips