Scalia on Rules When Dealing with Terrorism
I meant to post this a while ago, but John Fund in Political Diary reminds me about this:
The Globe and Mail newspaper in Canada reports [Scalia] positively gushed about the Fox series recently at a conference on homeland security in the Canadian capital of Ottawa that was attended by an international panel of judges. Mr. Scalia couldn't refrain from commenting after Canadian federal Judge Richard Mosley opined: "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra, 'What would Jack Bauer do?'"
As viewers know, Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, is a federal agent known for roughing up suspected terrorists who are holding out on important information.
"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles!" Mr. Scalia interjected. "He saved hundreds of thousands of lives!"
Indeed, Mr. Scalia was just warming up. "Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him?" he asked rhetorically. "Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so!"
Other panelists promptly challenged the American jurist, arguing that some prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay on terrorism charges could be innocent.
"I don't care about holding people. I really don't," Judge Scalia replied. After the panel broke up, he continued to wax enthusiastically about his favorite show.
As viewers know, Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, is a federal agent known for roughing up suspected terrorists who are holding out on important information.
"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles!" Mr. Scalia interjected. "He saved hundreds of thousands of lives!"
Indeed, Mr. Scalia was just warming up. "Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him?" he asked rhetorically. "Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so!"
Other panelists promptly challenged the American jurist, arguing that some prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay on terrorism charges could be innocent.
"I don't care about holding people. I really don't," Judge Scalia replied. After the panel broke up, he continued to wax enthusiastically about his favorite show.
Labels: SupremeCourt
posted by John Lott at 1:28 PM
1 Comments:
28 USC 455, a.: Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a habeas corpus appeal by a Guantanamo detainee next session, it seems transparent that Scalia should recuse himself, because of this. Given his history, it is doubful that Scalia will do what is both honourable and lawful though.
It cause great consternation to contemplate: against all enemies foreign and domestic, yet alternatives seem to disappear daily. The Legislative, Executive and Judiciary Branches of the American Government Do Not Exist Without The Law.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home