Truthout Original

Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent

by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Marjorie Cohn says, "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 a year ago."
(Photo: AP)

    To bolster his argument that the Guantanamo 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 Guantanamo 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 [Department of Defense] 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 Guantanamo 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 US 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 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.

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

Scalia is just an "old

Scalia is just an "old school" Italian bigot. He's not brilliant either; just another sophist who kisses the ass of "high" society and learns how to function within it. Scalia-types are a dime a dozen, most of them still living in Mafia-infested Sicily. Maybe he'll croak in the next four years or get caught taking oral sex from a trashy hooker.

Impeach every single justice

Impeach every single justice who put Bush in the White House in the first place. Since it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to select a president, these justice should have soundly rejected the task. If they prove unreliable in upholding the Constitution in such a primary matter, how can they be relied upon to uphold it elsewhere? Scalia is not the only one who should step down.

Just look at his picture he

Just look at his picture he looks confused and just plain stupid

Scalia is a reactionary

Scalia is a reactionary idiot.

The source of "facts" for

The source of "facts" for this type of appeal is typically untested remarks taken from affidavits. That is to say, no access to cross examination. Scalia is well inside Supreme Court tradition (of liberal and conservative justices) to have indulged. What's lacking is a strong follow up by the press (other than our treasured Truthout) to show that his example is a nullity. But in Scalia's defense, if you really read this guy's many decisions, you'll find a number that are strongly supportive of the rights of regular people against the might of the government. I kid you not: the Crawford case (tho' not taken as far as I would have liked) got rid of 40 years of bad law regarding a criminal defendant's right to confront his accusers. The federal sentencing disaster ran amok for nearly 20 years until Scalia iced it with his personal vision of constitutional interpretation. Go ahead and hate him, but if you don't mind sounding poorly informed, you have to hate him -- selectively. Does the bad outweigh the good? Hell, I don't know... but he ain't all bad. That's a fact.

Thank you for the story.

Thank you for the story. Justice Scalia does exactly as instructed by Dr Dobson. He listens intently for his cue from Miss Leopard skirt, Laura Ingraham. He would be the finest legislator from the bench if allowed by the upcoming election.

@RBE IMHO, you

@RBE IMHO, you (unfortunately) represent the true colors of most people on this site. While I agree with you all re the Boumedine decision, and the fact of Scalia's "conservative" judicial activism, all you all seem to want to do is replace it with "progressive" judicial activism, all the while claiming that this will somehow be an improvement in Constitutional interpretation. Both of the two groups of justices, "liberal" & "conservative" are terribly inconsistent in their application of the Constitution, motivated by their personal political ideologies. It would be nice to think of Kennedy as consistent, but I'm afraid all he really is is wishy-washy.

Why end this article with

Why end this article with the comment about Scalia being a "loyal foot soldier"? It takes this from an irrefutable news story to an opinion piece penned by an ideologue. Scalia is not up to the task intellectually. I heard him on Charley Rose say that his litmus test is: If it's not in the constitution, the SC has no reason to even consider it. This came after he espoused the opinion that habeas corpus is not a guarantee. What a dick.

Impeach.

Impeach.

Scalia is the poster boy for

Scalia is the poster boy for Fox News or what they claim to be. I am baffled by the Democrats who seem to be absolutely immobile and frightened to move against any of the Bush administration "alleged" criminals. Alleged because until 1/20/01, even criminals were guaranteed their day in court. We have an administration which has, with the approval of the Supreme Court and the conspiratal actions or lack thereof by the "appointed" GA's , scuttled the constitution, ignored the bill of rights and damaged our country in their pursuit of a phony war and the failed conservative mantra that the wealthy should be unimpeded in their pursuit of greater wealth because only by that means will they take care of the rest of us. it just seems to many if not most Americans that the sexual act of Clinton was not an impeachable offense but a war based upon blatant lies and manipulated data and which has caused more than 4000 American soldiers their lives and untold number of civilian deaths is most definitely an impeachable offense. At the very least, these culprits should be given an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. The Democrats should dump Pelosi and bring back the constitution and do their job..PERIOD! If they are too frightened or too incompetent, then they should resign and let Kucinicek run with the ball.

We should be grateful that

We should be grateful that in just 7 months our pool of federal judges will begin to move toward the Constitution.

Scalia is cut from the same

Scalia is cut from the same cloth as Dick Cheney. Cheney is notorious for making things up, pulling them out of the air, as he goes along. Scalia has brought nothing but shame to the Supreme Court. We can thank both the Republicans and the Democrats for his being there.

The question is who put that

The question is who put that information in the court records, who allowed it to stay uncorrected? scienter I think its called?

As others have pointed out,

As others have pointed out, it's irrelevant whether the released detainees have returned to the battlefield or not. That's beyond the purview of the court, whose role is to determine the constitutionality of laws and actions. It is, in fact, none of the court's business what happens to the detainees when released. As the court said today in overturning the death penalty for a child rapist, while the crime may be reprehensible, it is not a factor in the application of the death penalty. Scalia regularly conflates his personal (and usually ignorant) opinions with constitutional law. It is for this reason that he should be impeached, not merely because he subverted the facts to support an extra-legal opinion. Of course, this will never happen. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly proven that they are feckless even in the in the face of high crimes and misdemeanors, with few exceptions in personnel and issues. Pelosi's support of the unconstitutional FISA bill today is yet another case in point, as if any one reading this needs to be made aware of another case in point. As for term limits, I think that would be a grave mistake. As was pointed out, that works for progressive causes as well as against them. Thurgood Marshall, William Douglas, William Brennen, Harry Blackmum, Earl Warren, Hugo Black--if these and many others, including today's four, were forced into retirement by term limits we likely would not have such laws for the Bush cabal to recklessly and cavalierly violate. So that's not such a good idea. But impeachment is. I can dream, can't I?

I agree, thank you to the

I agree, thank you to the person who brought this out. Many of use do not have time to read even the majority opinion, let alone other supreme court documents. this is the first time I have heard any discussion of the reasoning of the dissenters. This is certainly illustrative. I could not imagine any rationale for denying any accused under the US jurisdiction due process, especially in this "perpetual" war.

Good reporting keeps tabs on

Good reporting keeps tabs on the power structures in our land, and this is definitely an example. Less careful legal scholarship and journalism would never catch a poorly-checked fact in a dissenting legal opinion. Kudos to all involved here, and shame on "Justice" Scalia and all his power-mongering executive-branch toadying. He will regret his incompetency, hubris, and lack of wisdom on his death bed or after he retires, just like other cowards such as Dan Rather and Scott McClellan.

I agree that Scalia is a

I agree that Scalia is a disgrace to the Supreme Court. But...let's not get out of control and demand term limits. After all, the "liberal" wing of the court is made up on the oldest members. It is the "youngsters" like the terrible 4 who are the problem. The important thing is to be sure the next President appoints progressive, competent judges to the court. He is likely to appoint vacancies of some of the more progressive members who will be retiring. Only time will flush us of the Scalias and the Thomases and the others who have ignored their duty to constitutional law.

"We have either elected a

"We have either elected a bunch of complete idiots or they are part of the plan. I'd bet they are all in step together and the people of the US are the complete idiots for allowing this to continue. By the time people wake up it will be too late." AMEN Say your prayers

I keep reading ad nauseum

I keep reading ad nauseum that Scalia is some sort of superbrain and one of the most highly regarded jurists on the Supreme Court. I have never, ever seen any evidence whatsoever that he has even an inkling of what America or American legal traditions (The Constitution to begin with) are all about. Can anyone suggest any evidence that I am missing? He has shown that he is clueless when anything that resembles science is under discussion (evolution, air pollution, global warming). Now he has shown a complete lack of understanding of what the Bill of Rights means. What DOES he know? How to make a will? There is a Mexican expression about tinpot lawyers, "abogado embarga planchas," that implies that he is a lawyer who siezes steam irons for collection agencies. Whenever I read about Scalia's exploits, this phrase comes to mind.

This is what America gets

This is what America gets for not holding officials accountable! If we, the people, allow this to stand unchallenged, America's decline will make the decline and fall of the Roman Empire look like a long drawn-out affair.

what a stupid justice scalia

what a stupid justice scalia

And what does Scalia know

And what does Scalia know about the court system, which he is a part of, that makes him put more faith in the military system when the evidence he presents condemns that very military system for mistakenly releasing terrorist?

It sounds stupid to point

It sounds stupid to point this out, but the guy even looks evil. How can a Supreme Court Justice who quotes disinformation as fact have any credibility at all?

An Anti-Constitutional

An Anti-Constitutional Supreme Court must be an essential element to those behind the Bush Administration. Taking apart the democratic structures of law in the Balance of Powers of the Constitution and the protections of citizens in the Bill of Rights has been the single domestic intent of the Bush-McCain Reich. It is the only way the strip mining of our precious freedoms and natural resources can go on. Democratic Rule of Law is inconvenient to pirates. ALL the Bush appointments appear to be geared to a grotesque national dismemberment. The pattern and overall intent is what must be cited to reverse and repair these treacheries against our law and liberties.

If Scalia does not retract

If Scalia does not retract his claim, he should be impeached.

He's a traitor. He needs to

He's a traitor. He needs to be tried in the world court. Our democracy has been compromised.

Term limits for Supreme

Term limits for Supreme Court Justices! Let's "ask" Obama what his position is on this. As we've seen, even Supremes are all too human: they're on their best behavior until their job is safe, then, WATCH OUT America, here come da judge!

Despite lip service to the

Despite lip service to the contrary, actual accounts - such as that of Al Qahtani - show that the treatment of the detainees has been vicious - torture no less in the sense that it is designed to break the human spirit, with an assumption of guilt no matter what. It would be surprising that anyone who can survive such treatment unbroken would not be radicalized. The pro-Guantanomo, fear-mongering crowed uses the argument of "recidivism" - implicitly rendering guilt - for continuing to deny habeas corpus to the detainees. Now we see distortion of the actual number of detainees returning to the battlefield by a justice of the Supreme Court. Scalia and his ilk are oppressors. Their cause is not justice but expediency, the kind of stuff that our Founding Fathers fought against.

Scalia needs to be removed

Scalia needs to be removed from the bench; he is nothing but a criminal. How can this be done? Justices should not be appointed for life.

And people wonder how anyone

And people wonder how anyone could possibly be less than proud of this country.

One of the most telling

One of the most telling differences between Democratic and Republican administrations is the quality of jurors nominated to the Supreme court. Just look at the current crop of Republican ideologues on the court. Scalia doesn't have the necessary even-handed temperament to be a jurist, much less on the SC.

First, I appreciate seeing

First, I appreciate seeing the return of Professor Cohn to your pages. Second, I consider Justice Scalia to be an example of a Supreme Court justice who should be impeached. I remember him saying words to the effect that prisoners held as enemy combatants did not receive cruel and unusual punishment because they had not been tried.

Sad but true, the democrats

Sad but true, the democrats are not doing what they were elected to do. You will never see Bush, Cheney or the rest of the criminals be held responsible for their actions. This is the worse administration in the history of this country. They laugh at the laws and do whatever they want yet impeachment has been off the table. This is no longer a free democracy, it is a dictatorship and Bush made damned sure he put all his cohorts in place. Will we see a new president after the fall elections, if indeed they are held? Will Bush declare martial law and cancel the elections or refuse to leave office? He already has his private military in place (Blackwater and others), he has already had huge detainment centers built by Halliburton, he has already made it clear that if we become involved in another war he can declare martial law. Wonder why he is so antsy to start something with Iran? Congress hasn't lifted a finger to stop him, sat there and watched while he put all of this in place. We have either elected a bunch of complete idiots or they are part of the plan. I'd bet they are all in step together and the people of the US are the complete idiots for allowing this to continue. By the time people wake up it will be too late.

Scalia would have found

Scalia would have found Hitler innocent because he would have said that Hitler had a job to do. It would be interesting if Cheney and Bush have to appear before his court for some of their crimes to see what Scalia would say in their defense!

This from a court that just

This from a court that just gutted the Exxon/Valdez penalty down to $500 million! Heck, they made that much by coffee break today. Too bad it wasn't the Exxon/Martha's Vinyard spill! Maybe we should hire some of those released to do a job on the Supremes and their puppet masters.

So what if it were true?

So what if it were true? Would that justify the denial if civil and human rights to all prisoners? If one chief justice is a bald-faced liar, do we condemn all of them as liars? The logic and statements of Scalia demonstrate he has no business being on the bench.

It's a sad fact of the

It's a sad fact of the matter that being an asshat is not grounds for impeachment; if it were, there would be no one left sitting on the bench at all. Still, Scalia is one sorry excuse of a judge. "Original intent," my aching Petunia.

I am sure our military would

I am sure our military would expect no less of soldiers captured and released, than to go back into the fray. Even if Scalia were right, does that give him the right to detain others? Collective punishment? Might Makes Right? This absolutism is what is destroying our nation. There is no reason for an extreme and rude person like Scalia to ever be on our Supreme Court. Democrats for not opposing him, Roberts and Alito are to be roundly condemned for sacrificing our future to their own supposed (and erroneous) political expediency instead of sound principle. For them now to use the admonition "it's about the Supreme Court, stupid" is hypocrisy beyond measure.

Scalia seems oblivious to

Scalia seems oblivious to the false argument he puts forth even if it were true that 30 detainees on being released returned to the battlefield. The Habeas Corpus process did not release them, military or political officers of the DoD released them. How would Habeas Corpus affect those decisions? And possibly the Courts would have ruled against 29 of the 30 that political officers released. And how many innocent detainees would go to the battlefield after release even though they had never been there before because of the false imprisonment they had been subjected to. By treating the detainees fairly we may actually convert many away from their terrorist past and Habeas Corpus upon causing their release by mistake may return them as converts who will argue with their former comrades against terrorism. All things are possible and Scalia only wants to believe his own twisted take on this issue.

What will be his penalty for

What will be his penalty for lying in an official dissent document? What recourse do we citizens have to defend ourselves against a crime? Can he be censured?

What a shock! The morally &

What a shock! The morally & intellectually deficient Justice Scalia bases yet another decision on shoddy information. Just another federal office holder that needs to be impeached.

High Crimes Bush and Cheney

High Crimes Bush and Cheney et al could never have done what they've done without Justice Scalia on the High Court. It's obvious he's part of the coup. Impeach Antonin Scalia.