Yoo says no, b/c these detainees are not citizens, so they are not protected by our Constitution. He also argues that they are not POWs b/c they don’t fight in the army of a foreign nationstate, so they are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions.

The Constitution says, “All men are created equal” not “All Americans are created equal”. So, citizen or not isn’t relevant.

Is there not a “Global WAR on Terra”? Anyone captured is a POW. Of course, that can be abused to include ‘capturing’ someone not really involved in any war-like activities. But, that aside, there are indeed POWs.

Where does the Law say someone has to be part of the military of a nation-state to be involved in war?

Every human being deserves to be treated well when in captivity. They also deserve some kind of hearing before legal authorities, so they will not be held or treated unreasonably on the authority of only one person or small group. This kind of governance is called ‘checks and balances’ and serves well.

The Bush administration and their supporters are sadistic ideologues who don’t seem to mind destroying anything in their path to whatever it is they want.

You know if we just execute people before trial or buried them alive, we could avoid the cost of a trial and accusations of cruel and unusual punishment altogether.

You are sooo deep. I can dig it. Down deep you know it isn’t punishment. Heh. Hugh, you slay me.

I just got back from a Criminal Justice retreat in Manhattan. Sheldon Whitehouse was the keynote speaker. Bob McKay flew in from Seattle for the purpose of being a panel to proudly announce that he was fired by Bush for trying to do his job as US Attorney honestly. The room was chock full of ex prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, law school professors and judges, from both political parties–all completely aghast at what has happened. It was like the last oasis of sanity in the world (well, other than the Lake *g*)

Okay, we recognize there is a problem. What’s the solution, other than waiting out this administration?

I think, in the case of Scalia, that he’s letting his ideological side get the better of his lawyer side. He’s letting his feelings for the Right and his allegiance lead him to logic (whether someone else’s or his own rationalizations) which is pulling him away from the fundamentals of Law.

He needs to get in a locked Law library and rethink this thing — starting with fundamentals which don’t change regardless of who is president or which party is in the majority.

He’s a smart guy. He can figure this out if he tries.

- Tom

Alice In Wonderland: first the punishment, then the trial.

What a great pick up. Mind if I borrow that?