Marjorie Cohn: Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34329

Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-06-24 18:48.

By Marjorie Cohn


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."

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.



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.
»

[Supersedeas]

1. where are the Media lawyers to point this out: Nina Totenburg, Michael Tobin, Dan Abrams??

Surely, the GoP Media establishment will not send Geraldo to point out the audacity of a legal argument based on lies.

[Mythsaje]

2. Hey, Scalia, your pants are afire.

You're a proud recipient of the Citizen Insane award

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3512474&mesg_id=3512474

[sharp_stick]

3. Scalia is a submoronic twit

It's an affront to this nation to allow that POS to leech off the public teat the rest of his life. I can't believe we don't have a better way to pick Supreme Court Justices.

[EFerrari]

4. Yep. He's an @ss. How disgusting that he sits on the SC. n/t

[Hydra]

5. I love how Bushco builds reality

They get the NYT to run a story for them, and then they cite that story as proof that it's true.

Man, people are stupid to believe what's in print or on TV these days.

[indepat]

6. Scalia's rulings will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed or

otherwise die in a multitude of ways. If only a bad apple could be removed from the high court through impeachment, countless American lives would doubtless be spared. :D

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I would suggest impeachment, if the Dem leadership weren't so allergic to the concept.

[knitter4democracy]

8. I'm all for that.

The man is a disgrace to the bench. His arguments are full of crap, his reasoning is flawed, and he blatantly ignores or re-writes the Constitution. Why is he still there?

[pokercat999]

9. I would suggest the "Pelican Brief" if it weren't illegal, cause

as far as I'm concerned, in this case it sure as hell isn't immoral. And yes, since it's my morality or lack of it, I get to choose.

[Sam Ervin jret]

10. Ideologues tend to be intellectually lazy. Scalia is a case in point.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Can't you overturn an opinion if it's found that the judge didn't get the facts right?

[Crabby Appleton]

14. He was on the losing side - what are you going to overturn?

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. His dicta is still considered an opening for future changes in the law.

I've heard law professors point out to students that cases that are narrowly decided today can mean a complete swing in opinion in the future, when the courts change. When a student once started using Scalia's dicta as opinion, I was the one that had to point out that it was dicta. When the other students wanted to know what I was talking about, the professor sheepishly explained. There was no excuse for her students not to know. That's what makes Scalia a very reckless person.

I would rather he get the reputation of being unreliable in his conclusions, so that people are careful about quoting him.

[klyon]

12. surely Scalia knows that he must make arguments based on

law and the constitution not DOJ statistics.

He should be impeached for sure brazen partisan political logic.

[Uncle Joe]

13. This is the same M.O. they used during the run up to the war with Iraq,

the Defense Dept citing news releases of which the Defense Dept. had surreptitiously been the sources for.

If anyone deserves to be impeached, Scalia does.

[hvn_nbr_2]

15. 30. 0. It's close enough for government work.

The "It's close enough for government work" line was what he used to justify that two homeowners who own identical next door homes pay hugely different property taxes, based simply on how long they've owned their homes.

[SergeyDovlatov]

17. Can he be impeached of the supreme court? n/t

[Thothmes]

19. Yes if he as committed Treason, high crimes or misdemeanors,

But he cannot be impeached because we dont like his opinions.

[SergeyDovlatov]

20. I was thinking for making up facts such as 30 guys who joined the battlefield

Having a different opinion is fine.

[Thothmes]

21. Not my opinion

That is the standard the United States Constitution. Whether his statements about 30 guys rises to the level of a felony is for a whole bevy of lawyers to figure out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Hysterical AND irrelevant

Unless Scalia believes that innocents should be held because their detention might encourage them to commit crimes in the future.

[leftofthedial]

22. Scalia is a lying sack of shit?

Who knew?

[endarkenment]

23. Ah, the Liars Club Circle Jerk.

Nobody is to blame, you know. CNN sourced the DOD, the DOD 'corrected its error', Scalia sourced CNN. Whats the problem?