Buried tidbit about Supreme Court ruling on Noriega shows Scalia/Thomas still plotting.

[Poll_Blind]

Here is a link to a story about the Supereme Court turning down the review of a case about extradition (presumably) for Manuel Noriega. That's interesting, but not so important. What I found really interesting was that although the Court turned down the request for review, Justices Thomas and Scalia wanted to hear the case because of they felt the Court had something more to say (probably on the nature of extra-judicial detention a la Guantanamo).

I can only imagine what views they have, that they're chomping at the bit to push on us, but it's predicatable what direction they want to take our country.

Here are a few excerpts covering the point I'm talking about:

Though the majority on the court rejected the appeal without comment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote to say that he wanted to hear the case -- though not out of any particular sympathy for Noriega. Thomas wrote that he wanted to help clarify what has been a somewhat messy aftermath of the high court's 2008 decision that gave detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in American courts.

Thomas was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia to say that taking the case and addressing issues over the detainees "will spare detainees and the government years of unnecessary litigation."

They contended that Noriega's case would have given the court an opportunity to rule on that issue in a case uncomplicated by military commissions, classified information or the "extraterritorial detention" of the detainees.

Noriega, 75, was scooped up by the U.S. military in 1989 and was convicted for his role as a major international drug trafficker. Noriega was eligible for release in 2007, but he has remained locked up in the United State while fighting extradition. He wants to return to his home country where he also faces numerous charges including murder, but his advanced age means any sentence in Panama will likely be served under house arrest.

Noriega claimed that under terms of the Geneva Conventions the United States is required to send him home. But lower courts ruled the treaty doesn't force that requirement on the government.

Thought I'd pass on that little sickening tidbit. Sickening but worth knowing.

PB

[robinlynne]

1. They don't even pretend to be real judges.

[Rageneau]

2. Just like the U.S. no longer even pretends to be a free country.

In a free country, or one governed by law, Noreiga would have been released years ago -- once he had completed his term in prison. Noreiga completed his prison term long ago. He is still being held for no other reason than to keep him from embarrassing Bush and his CIA.

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. Once you cross the rubicon of torture being OK then.........

anything goes. You are no longer a moral people so why bother trying to keep up the charade.

[Fuzz]

4. Judicial Activism? Naw, couldn't be.

[reformist]

7. It's amazing how hypocritical Scalia et al are.

I wonder if they have any idea that they are doing the same thing they spent their careers railing against. Or maybe they're just liars.

[formercia]

5. So would throwing the detainees out the back of an aircraft at altitude.

"will spare detainees and the government years of unnecessary litigation."

[Poll_Blind]

9. Yeah, that's how I read the quote as well. "Sparing the detainees and the government", as though...

...they were doing everyone involved a favor.

PB

[KansDem]

6. Maybe they want to strip him of his "personhood?"

:shrug:

That would've sounded far-fetched some 30 years ago. Not so anymore...

[MadHound]

8. Well they really can't allow their CIA drug running bagman out of their sight

Given that once he was, he would spill his guts on all sorts of illegal doings during the seventies and eighties.