Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Scalia Used False Information in Gitmo Dissent

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted June 24, 2008.


"At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield," the belligerent judge said. This is a lie.
Advertisement

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.

This article first appeared at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: supreme court, guantánamo, antonin scalia, boumediene v. bush

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
American democracy crumbling?
Posted by: sslyon on Jun 25, 2008 7:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If reports are true about Scalias' outbursts and reckless use of erroneous information upon which he bases his decisions, it is shocking proof of real degradation in the selection process for Supreme Court judges. That should be a clarion call to arms for every American. We've GOT to get smart and get active to take back our own democratic process! It is agonizingly evident that we're too ignorant about the pathology in our democracy to marshall the outrage it deserves. What an incredibly pathetic and tragic future we face unless we awaken... NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

vote of no confidence
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Jun 25, 2008 9:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all lawyers that belong to the bar should take a no vote of confidence on scalia to go on record. the man thinks he invented the law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NO CONFIDENCE? IMPEACH!! Posted by: larryfhilton
He is a nothing
Posted by: bobtr900 on Jun 26, 2008 12:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By that I mean that the few times I have senn this piece of garbage on TV I come away with the notion that he has no redeeming social value, of any kind and about anything. Scalia is nothing more than an extension of Reagan, the Republican party and the Catholic Church, my religion, and a huge embarrassment to all. Above all else he is a huge destructive force to us all.

Both of the entities that spawned him seem destined to corrupt America via their hate for it and our way of life. Will we survive their agenda for us, truly, I do not know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is there any way to remove a SCOTUS Judge?
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jun 28, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if not, why not?

Pretty sure that some judges come under continual peer review nationally... but who assesses and reviews SCOTUS, this is most powerful body anywhere! [power over life and death]

and I thought...
Justice in the US was implemented to protect its citizens from the blatant neglect and vulgarities from its own, but these days this is only available to those that can afford it!

Lets just call this new improved justice system...
JUSTICE 2.0 new and improved [for those that can afford it]

can't you see?... something is seriously wrong here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]