Torture Watch- Clarence Thomas: Peekaboo! I see Yoo!

By GottaLaff

Talk about mirror images. First, Clarence Thomas:

According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

If he were to look at his own reflection, he'd say, "Peekaboo! I see Yoo!"

Yoo||samohT:

The court's decision came a few days after Thomas' now-famous former law clerk John C. Yoo was charged with flawed reasoning, but not professional misconduct, as a Justice Department lawyer when he applied much the same view toward the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners.

Um, that would be "alleged Al Qaeda" prisoners. Not every prisoner was affiliated with a terrorist group. Now, let's compare and contrast:

In the so-called torture memos in 2002, Yoo reasoned that subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or "stress positions" in cold cells was not illegal torture because it did not cause the intense pain of a serious injury, equivalent to "death or organ failure."

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the cruelest of them all?

It's a tie.

Let's not leave out Scalia. That would be rude:

Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."

Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty.

Alleged? Is this what they mean by "alleged"?


And see, it all depends on what the definition of "punishment" is, see:

The two justices explained that the word "punishment" as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose "punishment" even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

Ohhh, of course... the legal system stands corrected. How could so many have been so wrong all this time? Scalia, Thomas, and Yoo clearly have the letter of the law down pat... allegedly. The rest of us are dead wrong:

When asked about torture and cruelty toward prisoners, he discounted the possibility. "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so," Scalia said. "What's he punishing you for? He's trying to extract" information, he said.

And that justifies everything. America, and all those tortured-- not punished-- prisoners can breathe easy now.

Allegedly.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Antonin Scalia: "There is no right to secede"

By GottaLaff

Thank you, Markos, thank you... for linking to this:

(click on image to enlarge)

The Tea Tantrumers and Ricky the Seceder will be so disappointed

Scalia Would Have Voted to Keep School Segregation

By GottaLaff

Supreme Court "Justice"?

In an appearance at the University of Arizona, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia "said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of 'separate but equal'; public schools," the East Valley Tribune reports.

"He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better."

"I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right.

This from the man who thought nothing of executing the innocent. And here's a peek at a few more chestnuts of judicial wisdom:

"Right to abortion?'' he asked. "Come on. Nobody thought it violated anything in the Constitution for 200 years. It was criminal.''

The same, said Scalia, is true of homosexual sodomy. Yet the nation's high court has struck down state laws banning both.

Thank you, Bush 43, Ronald Reagan*, for your lasting contribution to the Supreme Court, and thank you to everyone who voted to confirm Ronnie's nominees. We'll be indebted to you all for years...

...and years, and years.

*Sorry for the error. I am truly half asleep today.

Antonin Scalia and Glenn Beck: Just Two Degrees of Radical Separation

By GottaLaff

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash, via my pal Mark Karlin:

Scalia portrays himself as a "strict constructionist," but he -- like Glenn Beck -- is a far fringe extremist who the right wing has successfully shifted into mainstream credibility. Scalia and Beck just have different venues.

Most recently, Scalia [...] astonished Constitutional scholars and non-Christians alike in a case regarding a cross on public land allegedly honoring veterans. [...]

Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice who one would assume would defend the separation of church and state in the Constitution, "reassured" the congregation that Jews would have nothing to fear from a Christian America because no Christian nation had ever persecuted the Jews.

Uh, Hitler, the Inquisition, the Pogroms, Ghettos...the man isn't brilliant, as the esteemed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called him, he's a radical danger to the Republic. He already did 8 years of damage with installing of Bush as president.

But what's to be remembered here is that in the world of the Washington elite -- Democratic and Republican -- Scalia is considered a legal wizard, respectable, part of the establishment.

Similarly, we are seeing a process whereby the extremist, incendiary entertainer and demagogue, Glenn Beck, has moved from basically a provocateur of a militia movement to the cover of Time and interviews with Katie Couric. [...]

No, Beck is not going anywhere except to become more of an accepted "star" in the media world. The corporate mainstream media has, over decades, ignored and dismissed anyone on the left it considers fringe, but embraces demagogues on the right and legitimatizes them.

That's one of the reasons BuzzFlash started the Turn Off Fox in public places campaign, which we plan to grow into a larger initiative to marginalize FOX in particular, which is basically 24 hours of corporate demagoguery that brainwashes Americans who are susceptible to emotional manipulation and bias that favors entrenched wealth. [...]

It's time to return FOX and the entire dangerous-to-America, fringe GOP apparatus to the disreputable margins of society. That's why we started the Turn Off FOX campaign.

There's only two degrees of separation between Glenn Beck and Antonin Scalia. Until the radical right wing is discredited, they both will be embraced by the wealthy corporate media as reputable.

And that is of great risk and harm to democracy.

You can read the rest of Mark's excellent post here.

Wanted for Murder: Antonin Scalia

By GottaLaff

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash, courtesy of my pal, Mark Karlin:

Antonin Scalia is guilty of initiating the theft of the 2000 election from Al Gore through a stay he issued forcing the stop of the State Court ordered recount in Florida, and his subsequent coordination a 5-4 majority to annoint George W. Bush as President.

But as of just yesterday, August 17th, he also added state sanctioned murder to his list of crimes.

Scalia was one of just two written dissenters (along with his puppet, Clarence Thomas), who ferociously challenged the notion that the Supreme Court should ensure that an innocent man not be put to death. That's right, Scalia [...] asserts that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an innocent person from being executed. [...]

But, every person must be responsible for his or her actions -- that is what the law is all about, isn't it? -- and when it comes down to Scalia as a man, he's just an accessory to murder wearing a black robe.

Tried by a D.C. jury, the guy would do less harm to the nation and innocent Americans if he were put behind bars himself.

Much more here. Please go read the rest.

Speculation of the day: Gore for SCOTUS?

Ain't gonna happen, but it sure would make Scalia and Thomas squirm.

VIDEO: Barney Frank calls Scalia a 'homophobe' in interview

By GottaLaff

Love that Barney Frank:

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in a recent interview with the gay news Web site 365gay.com.

Hey, if the robe fits...

The Democratic lawmaker, who is gay, was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages.

"I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court," said Frank.

Chief Justice publicly accepts Obama eligibility petition

By GottaLaff



You have got to be kidding. I posted about the "birthers" Friday the Thirteenth petition, and as you see in the video above, Rachel Maddow covered the story that day. Guess what: The Supremes accepted a petition from World Net Daily:

World Net Daily - A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" clause.

First of all, 325,000? I wonder how many of those were legitimate. But that aside, and someone fill me in here, is the Court required to accept petitions like these? Or does this hint at taking seriously, and possibly even the potential acceptance, of these wingnutcases' obsession?

On the lighter side, check out the melodramatic description of events:

According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition. [...]

Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama's eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard. [...]

"Tell me what to do, what can I do?" Taitz reports asking Scalia. "Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?"

She says Scalia responded, "Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others." [...]

"I said, 'Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I'm an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o'clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,'" Taitz told WND. "My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?"

According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, "I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard.

"Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket," Taitz told Roberts.

Then she held up the WND petition and continued, "Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for presidency."

According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, "I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them."

Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts.

I need a talking down... not because I think this will go anywhere, but because the Chief Justice, if this is accurate, is in reality, the Chief Twit.

Justice ScaLIEa

By GottaLaff

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: You're guilty. Guilty, guilty, and once again, guilty.

Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research has issued a report revealing that Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, which accords Guantánamo detainees the right to habeas corpus review in federal court, cites inaccurate information that was retracted by its original source, the Department of Defense (DoD).

Aren't judges, especially Supreme Court ones, supposed to have good, you know, judgment?

On June 12, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion on the ruling stated that “[a]t least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.”

Scalia: Guilty.

Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research commented, “As lawyers and judges we have an obligation to be careful with our facts. The notion that 30 detainees ‘returned to the battlefield’ was disproved a year ago. It is distressing that Justice Scalia in Boumediene was not more careful in such an important matter, especially since he was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him.”

Scalia: Guilty.

Joshua Denbeaux, senior fellow and co-author of the report, stated, “A Supreme Court ruling that includes patently inaccurate information diminishes the Court’s credibility and tarnishes the international reputation of the highest court in the United States. Just as disturbing, DoD seems incapable of producing credible information about what has actually happened to former Guantánamo detainees. If the decision to release detainees had been made by the courts, rather than political appointees of DoD, America would be safer.”

Scalia: Guilty, on all counts. Court is adjourned.

(Justice Scalia, the Department of Defense, and the Perpetuation of an Urban Legend was compiled by the Center’s student and graduate research fellows. The report may be read at http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf.)