The Atlantic Monthly has a good column on the treatment and rights of enemy combatants, and the recent Supreme Court decisions on this. Check it out.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, I wrote another article for Kuro5hin (a news-and-discussion site). Here it is:
Justice Scalia says rights excessive, can be scaled down in wartime
While giving a lecture titled "Catholicism and Justice" at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio on Tuesday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was asked whether he thought constitutional rights were being violated in America's new campaign on terrorism.
Justice Scalia responded that the the government would be justified in scaling down rights. "The Constitution just sets minimums," he said. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
According to Scalia, during wartime one could expect "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum." Don't let this worry you, however -- Scalia assures us he "won't let it go beyond the constitutional minimum."
The next day Justice Scalia received a "Citadel of Free Speech" award from the Cleveland City Club. The camera-shy justice banned broadcast media from recording his remarks at the award ceremony, leading a C-SPAN vice president to write the City Club, commenting that the ban "begs disbelief and seems to be in conflict with the award itself. ... How free is speech if there are limits to its distribution?"
Scalia was given the award in recognition of his rulings in defense of the First Amendment, most notably in striking down a Texas flag-burning law. In 1989, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of flag-burner Gregory Lee Johnson in a 5-4 vote. Mr. Johnson was convicted of burning an American flag while protesting outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas.
In a joke-filled speech, Scalia said that though he felt bound to do it, he did not enjoy setting Mr. Johnson free:
"Trust me, I did not like to not put Mr. Johnson in jail - bearded, scruffy, sandal-wearing . . . " - the crowd's laughter cut Scalia off.More insight on Scalia, his views on religion, the death penalty, and other nasty things he'd like to do can be found in this NYTimes guest editorial."But I was handcuffed. I couldn't help it. That's my understanding of the First Amendment. I can't do the nasty things I'd like to do," Scalia said, partly in jest, alluding to law-school professors and Supreme Court critics who say Scalia's devotion to "originalism" legally chains him.
So, the question: are our rights excessive? And should they be "ratcheted down" in this time of war? What kind of "constitutional minimum" do you think he and other justices would accept?
[Note: someone on the K5 discussion page for this article ventured this photo showing Mr. Johnson was not, in fact, bearded.]
Posted by cce at March 22, 2003 11:02 AM | TrackBack