Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia has decided the upcoming election for us - much like he and his cronies did in 2000. But this time, it's not going his way and his own written words are biting him on his ass.
Scalia wrote an irrational and scathing dissent from the majority opinion which argues in a circle. The thing is, his opinion really puts the screws to John McCain. His argument against allowing the prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp (CAMP??) to have the right to the writ of Habeas Corpus also makes the case against McCain's American birth credentials and, therefor, his ability to legally take the Oath of Office.
I'll explain it all below the fold - very interesting reading!
All quotations attributed to Justice Antonin Scalia come from his written dissent from the recent US Supreme Court decision in the case of BOUMEDIENE v BUSH issued June 12, 2008 which restored the right to the writ of Habeas Corpus to the prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Pertinent page numbers are provided at the end of each quotation. These page numbers reference the page of the .pdf file containing the court's decision, Chief Justice Roberts' blatantly right-wing dissenting opinion and Justice Scalia's separate yet even more neurotic opinion. The entire document - in .pdf form - is available here:
Supreme Court file
Scalia opens his dissent with the following statement:
"Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war."
He closes his first paragraph with this:
"The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad;"
(page 110 of 134)
Remember the word "abroad" as it was twice used above in describing the US naval base at Gitmo. It's important.
Further along in his dissent, Scalia writes:
"As a court of law operating under a written Constitution, our role is to determine whether there is a conflict between that Clause and the Military Commissions Act. A conflict arises only if the Suspension Clause preserves the privilege of the writ for aliens held by the United States military as enemy combatants at the base in Guantanamo Bay, located within the sovereign territory of Cuba." (Pp. 115 & 116)
However, the laws of "the sovereign territory of Cuba" do not apply within the confines of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which contains the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The laws of the United States of America apply there, and the flag of the USA flies over that US naval base from dawn to dusk 365 days a year - as it has has for the past 105 years. In fact, if one were to research the opinion of the sovereign nation of Cuba about the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, one would find the following:
"The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantanamo to be an illegal occupation of the area..."
wikipedia entry
Hence, the USA is in full and sovereign control of that piece of land. Is it a US territory? Legally, no. But, you're not setting foot inside that base without the permission of the USA, so that makes it (functionally) a territory of the USA. Before I started reading Scalia's ranting rave of an opinion, I was certain that any child born there would be considered a full US citizen and considered eligible to be elected President.
Scalia, however, asserts that since this naval base is located "abroad" - as in "in another country" - as in "it isn't US-controlled", US laws (like the Constitution) don't apply there and hence one cannot extend the right of the writ of Habeas Corpus to foreign nationals who are imprisoned there by the USA - even though this right is extended to illegal aliens who not only are in one of the 50 US states, but is also extended to foreign nationals who are in a country which the USA controls, like the Philippines when it was a US territory. (p. 119)
Is there, morally, any difference between a US naval base anywhere in the world and a territory of the US? Honestly, there is no functional difference whatsoever.
While you and I may feel that Gitmo functions as much like a territory of the US as Puerto Rico currently does (and a majority of the SCOTUS agrees with us), Scalia is screaming that this US naval base is NOT American soil and that our Constitution does not apply there.
If this is the case - if Naval bases aren't any part of the US and our civilian laws don't apply there - how can John McCain (who was born on a US naval base in Panama) be legally permitted to take the Oath of Office?
You can't have it both ways, Antonin. Either all of our laws apply to all of our naval bases, or none of them apply to any of them. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to follow or which US military installations to which it applies. So which is it, Justice Scalia? Do the prisoners at Gitmo have the right to the writ of Habeas Corpus (and your dissenting opinion is then void), or is your buddy John McCain ineligible to be our next POTUS?
We await your answer.....sir.