Retired military brass..

[BoomerJack]

.. have come to hate America. Check out the last para. and write your Reps. and Sens.



Retired Generals Want Scalia Off Gitmo Case Mon Mar 27, 11:20 PM ET

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was asked Monday to stay out of a case involving a foreign detainee because of remarks Scalia made about the rights of enemy combatants.

Speaking at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland on March 8, Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

Justices were hearing arguments Tuesday in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. His lawyers argue that President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered Hamdan and other alleged enemy combatants to face special military trials.

Hamdan's lawyers have not called for Scalia to step aside. Instead, five retired generals who support Hamdan's arguments sent a letter late Monday to the court with the request that Scalia withdraw from participating in the case. They say Scalia appears to have prejudged the case.

The retired generals said Scalia's speech in Switzerland "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that ... the justice had made up his mind about the merits" of Hamdan's arguments.

In the speech, first reported by Newsweek, Scalia repeated his views from 2004 that enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should not have access to U.S. courts and traditional legal rights.

The retired generals said that the justice may have "personal animus" to the Hamdan case because he has a son who served in the military in Iraq.

Justices decide for themselves whether they have conflicts and should stay out of cases.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees could use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Scalia disagreed with that ruling, and in the recent speech repeated his beliefs that enemy combatants have no legal rights.

The Hamdan case will go forward without Chief Justice John Roberts, who had voted in the case as a lower court judge.

The letter came from five retired generals and admirals: Navy Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter; Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson; Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn; Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms; and Army Brig. Gen. James P. Cullen.

;)


Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[SicEmBaylor]

I read the transcript of Scalia's speech and he is totally correct. It's disgusting that we're processing foreign enemies through our domestic judicial system. It's totally uncalled for.

In fact, there is plenty of justification for simply executing them after extracting whatever information may be helpful in combating their movement.

[Okla-homey]

pfffft. Two Navy two stars, one Navy three-star and a Marine and Army one star do not corporately compose "retired military brass." They are just 5 d00ds who obviously have axes to grind. Prolly just sour they didn't get higher before they were put out to pasture.

We don't even know if they were line officers. They might be chaplains or something.

Now, if there were a dozen or so four stars representing all the services instead of 4 Dept of the Navy and 1 Dept of the Army, that letter might have some smash. Anyway, WTF are they to try to dictate anything to a whole 'nuther branch of government? I say, STFU.

[Okla-homey]

hah! I knew it:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/deansoffice/hutson.htm

which means they're all former JAG's. They don't count.

Now, lets see how soon it takes the non-cyber-based media to figure out these aren't combat line flag officers and in fact are just 5 former military lawyers who are contesting the judgment of a more senior lawyer in the form of one Justice Antonin Scalia.

BFD.

[Vaevictis]

In fact, there is plenty of justification for simply executing them after extracting whatever information may be helpful in combating their movement.

Pray tell, what justification would that be?

[SicEmBaylor]

Pray tell, what justification would that be?

Well, they are enemies of these United States fighting out of uniform and without the legitimacy of a nation-state. In WWII we executed German troops behind American lines who were out of uniform or wearing an American uniform. In my estimation those German troops were far more legitimate than Islamic jihadists.

The exception to executing them would be if they're American citizens. But why exactly should we expand constitutional protections to non-US citizens fighting us out of uniform without the legitimacy of a nation state? They are enemies of the State and at the end of the day the worst of them should simply be executed through a military tribunal.

[Ike]

hah! I knew it:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/deansoffice/hutson.htm

which means they're all former JAG's. They don't count.

Now, lets see how soon it takes the non-cyber-based media to figure out these aren't combat line flag officers and in fact are just 5 former military lawyers who are contesting the judgment of a more senior lawyer in the form of one Justice Antonin Scalia.

BFD.


I'm going to throw this out there despite not having as much knowledge of the situation as I would like. It seems to me that these officers may want Justice Scalia to recuse himself for a completely sane reason. Stick with me a minute, cause it may take a bit to explain...

anyhow, from what I understand, the gitmo prison, and indeed the entire idea of 'enemy combatants' (as opposed to prisoners of war) and their legal standing is in some region of legal grey area, and not very well defined at all. It stands to reason that Military officers and even more so Military JAG Officers are not all that excited about operating in a legal grey area. I say this because there are any number of chances for them to step 'over the line' and INADVERTENTLY put themselves and their fellow officers and servicemen and women at risk of criminal proceedings when the line between 'cool' and 'not cool' is so blurry.

Because of the statements Justice Scalia has made, irregardless of whether or not we think he may be correct, he has in fact shown himself to have strong feelings on the matter prior to hearing the case that will be comming before him. Now, in my opinion, its fine for a judge or justice to have a strong feeling on issues such as these, but I think the fear is that with such a strong feeling on the issue, One could worry that Justice Scalia might wish to simply keep the status quo of a legal grey area surrounding enemy combatants, rather than to help define a clear legal status of these detainees, in order to give the Military more breadth of action for the time being.


just my humble (and not as well informed as it should be) opinion. Homey, feel free to take me to task on this...

[Okla-homey]

Just my opinions too mind you...

The justices are empowered to exercise their conscience in accordance with our Constitution and the facts and procedural history of a specific case. That's why we as a people put them there. The fact Scalia has a kid in the military does not IMHO constitute a conflict of interest.

The mere fact Scalia has opined on the matter is not in and of itself disqualifying. It only becomes so if he in good conscience believes he cannot decide the case objectively when he applies the facts of the case to the Constitution as he interprets it. That's "personal animus." In that case he is probably duty-bound to recuse himself.

As you know, those nine folks get paid to be the final authority on whether a statute, regulation, ordinance or govt'l policy is constitutional, thus they are the ultimate zebras. The buck stops with them. No "further review."

With regards to the issue of whether or not "enemy combatants" are in the realm of a legal grey area, I don't think they are. I can't think of a historic example involving even a US-held POW (who has certain rights under the Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory) having access to due process in civilian US courts.

These cats at Gitmo aren't even POW's. They are individuals taken while in arms against the Armed Forces of the United States on a foriegn battlefield. They're just lucky they didn't get iced at the point of capture.
Instead, we humanely brought them to Gitmo in order to exact intelligence information and take them out of the fight. The tribunal's job is to decide, based on the facts, whether or not they may be repatriated to the sh1thole of their choice or held indefinitely. No one is talking about executing them. That's what the Islamo-fascists do with curvy swords.

We used to hang people taken on the battlefield who wore no uniform after being convicted by a court-martial (aka "military tribunal.") I think that's where Justice Scalia is coming from. That doesn't mean Scalia won't form his opinion based on the facts and the Constitution.

One other thing to keep in mind, the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall[...]be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..." "Person" is interpreted as a citizen or other who is here legally. Thus, illegal aliens have no right to due process. I don't think its much of a stretch to say that some d00d taken in asscrackistan wearing a bathrobe and a roll of toilet paper on his head who is trying kill our kids has any rights under the Fifth Amendment either.

For all those reasons, I think Justice Scalia will hear the case, and I also bet they'll ultimately hold that military tribunals for foreign fighters are okey-dokey.

[Vaevictis]

Well, they are enemies of these United States fighting out of uniform and without the legitimacy of a nation-state.

We know that at least some of them were civilians who were just randomly caught up in a dragnet -- or at least, that's what the Bush administration has said with respect to some of them that they've later released. Assuming the Bush administration isn't lying about that, do you think it's better for the military to just summarily execute all prisoners, or at least give a trial?


The exception to executing them would be if they're American citizens. But why exactly should we expand constitutional protections to non-US citizens fighting us out of uniform without the legitimacy of a nation state?

Because when you take someone prisoner, you accept additional burdens with respect to their care. If you don't want to accept those burdens, then don't take them prisoner.

For what it's worth, I'm not advocating that military prisoners be handed over to the civvies for trial. A military trial is sufficient, so long as you can count on the JAGs to mount a vigorous defense (which you can) and you can count on the military jury to be reasonably impartial (which I think is possible if the court is careful regarding the jury's construction).

The real issue at hand is: what kind of face do we want to present to the world?

It is my contention that the terrorism problem has no military solution. You can use the military to *help* with the problem, but the whole point of assymetric warfare is to fight big lumbering militaries like ours with a much smaller force. You hit them where they're weak, then fade away when they bring force to bear. Essentially, it's a drain on the military's (and thus the nation's) resources.

The long term key to winning this war is to dry up the recruitment base. The main beef I have with the White House's "war on terror" is their strategy, which seems to be to try to crush them through brute military force. In doing so, we are playing right into the terrorist's hands, because it's when we do that that their strategy is *strongest*.

What we need is a strategy that dries up the terrorist recruitment base; our current one, if anything, seems to be inflaming it. The administration either doesn't realize this, doesn't care, or is wholly incompetent and incapable of making strides in that direction.

The main reason I took exception to your initial statement is that it only takes *one* wrongful execution of a traditional tribal Arab or Persion amongst the Gitmo (or other prisons) populace, and in theory we will essentially have a blood feud with their tribe -- and odds are very good that at least one more terrorist will sign on with the cause.

We need to tread very carefully. Even if we aren't obliged to give ununiformed combatants a trial, we *should* do so, simply because it's in our best interest for this and other reasons.


They are enemies of the State and at the end of the day the worst of them should simply be tried through a military tribunal.

Fix it like that, and I don't disagree.

[usmc-sooner]

just take the mid easterners out back and shoot em, hell they're used to it.

[Vaevictis]

just take the mid easterners out back and shoot em, hell they're used to it.

Unfortunately, that's not an option. :/

[SicEmBaylor]

We know that at least some of them were civilians who were just randomly caught up in a dragnet -- or at least, that's what the Bush administration has said with respect to some of them that they've later released. Assuming the Bush administration isn't lying about that, do you think it's better for the military to just summarily execute all prisoners, or at least give a trial?

Well, but as I said this should all be done through a military tribunal. Let me explain this a little more. A lot of times I like to go with the most radical position possible and then later attempt to make it more sensical. :D

First and foremost foreign fighters should not be dealt with under our regular domesitc judicial system. That being said we can't keep every captive indefinitely. Military tribuans should be use to determine which individuals simply got caught in the wrong place and the wrong time and released. The ones who have actively engaged in terrorist activities that resulted in the deaths of American citizens should be executed.


Because when you take someone prisoner, you accept additional burdens with respect to their care. If you don't want to accept those burdens, then don't take them prisoner.

While under our care they should be cared for to a certain extent. I don't agree with treating them as fair combatants worthy of Geneva Convention protections. However as a benevolent nation, yes, we are obligated to care for those we detain. Until we execute or release them...


For what it's worth, I'm not advocating that military prisoners be handed over to the civvies for trial. A military trial is sufficient, so long as you can count on the JAGs to mount a vigorous defense (which you can) and you can count on the military jury to be reasonably impartial (which I think is possible if the court is careful regarding the jury's construction).

Fair enough..


It is my contention that the terrorism problem has no military solution. You can use the military to *help* with the problem, but the whole point of assymetric warfare is to fight big lumbering militaries like ours with a much smaller force. You hit them where they're weak, then fade away when they bring force to bear. Essentially, it's a drain on the military's (and thus the nation's) resources.

The long term key to winning this war is to dry up the recruitment base. The main beef I have with the White House's "war on terror" is their strategy, which seems to be to try to crush them through brute military force. In doing so, we are playing right into the terrorist's hands, because it's when we do that that their strategy is *strongest*.

What we need is a strategy that dries up the terrorist recruitment base; our current one, if anything, seems to be inflaming it. The administration either doesn't realize this, doesn't care, or is wholly incompetent and incapable of making strides in that direction.


Well, there is a military solution to the problem but that solution is not one that we as a nation or as a moral people are prepared to execute and implement. I think a military solution would involve the mass destruction of the middle east with the aim of wiping out as much of the population as possible.

Short of that I agree with you that there is no absolute military solution to the problem.

But here is the problem, if you listen and read the reasons that they hate America and their demands on us for them to stop their jihad are things that we simply can't and won't do. It isn't enough to stop our support for Israel, we have to change who we are as a people and as Americans. Its our CULTURE and ideas that they are most afraid of which threatens their society and civilization. They are at heart conservatives who are attempting to preserve their traditions and culture. As a people Americans have always been expansionist both in territory but especially commerce and culture. There is no way to stop our culture from influencing and changing their society. It's cultural imperialism pure and simple.

So, therein lies the real solution to defeating terrorism. Rather than pull back and attempt to prevent our culture from infecting their society we should embrace and encourage it. There's currently a tremendous amount of resistance to American culture in the middle east but in the end it's an incurable disease that will kill off islam's most extreme elements. This will take DECADES and unfortunately during that time we will have to deal with violent backlashes which creates the need for military solutions to the problem.

For example, if we don't strike back then it creates a sense of weakness and if America is percieved as weak then it undermines our longer term strategy of cultural dominance because it makes the culture itself weak thus making it more difficult to catch on.[/QUOTE]

[Vaevictis]

Well, there is a military solution to the problem but that solution is not one that we as a nation or as a moral people are prepared to execute and implement. I think a military solution would involve the mass destruction of the middle east with the aim of wiping out as much of the population as possible.

I don't even think that's a solution. You wouldn't just have to wipe out the Middle East. You'd have to essentially wipe out Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and ensure that all civilized nations participated in their own "Muslim solution" rather like the Nazis envisioned.

Every Muslim would have to be considered a potential terrorist. And if we started doing that, we'd have the world against us. And we can't fight the world and win. The best we can do is make sure everybody loses (ie, nuclear holocaust)


So, therein lies the real solution to defeating terrorism. Rather than pull back and attempt to prevent our culture from infecting their society we should embrace and encourage it.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This *is* the solution. The problem is, in order to spread that culture, people have to be receptive to it. This administration has, time and again, done incredibly stupid sh*t that prevents that.

I could give you a list of the stuff a mile long, but I'm sure you already know it, so I'll refrain. They just don't take the time to consider the PR implications of what they do. This administration is doomed to failure because they just don't get that this war will be won or lost on PR.


For example, if we don't strike back then it creates a sense of weakness and if America is percieved as weak then it undermines our longer term strategy of cultural dominance because it makes the culture itself weak thus making it more difficult to catch on.

I agree that there are times where military force is necessary. However, when you go that route, you must use it carefully lest you set back your ultimate goal -- which is essentially cultural conversion -- is damaged.

Also, like I said, using traditional military force against the terrorists is pointless. It plays to their strengths; they're specifically geared against that kind of strategy. IMO, it's better not to deploy at all than to get caught up in what we have in Iraq. In the minds of a potential enemy, the very fact that the terrorists *can* put up a fight in Iraq -- for three years no less -- shows that we're weak, just as surely as if we hadn't the spine to deploy at all.

And on top of it, it's costing us lives and money that could be better spent elsewhere on internal security forces, propoganda activities and intel.