Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scalia, McCain and Yoo Push Discredited "Gitmo 30" Talking Point

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 08:44 AM
Original message
Scalia, McCain and Yoo Push Discredited "Gitmo 30" Talking Point
Scalia, McCain and Yoo Push Discredited “Gitmo 30″ Talking Point

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/23/scalia-mccain-and-yoo-push-discredited-gitmo-30-talking-point/



By: Jon Perr on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 at 6:30 AM - PDT

Earlier, I detailed how John McCain, John Yoo and Justice Antonin Scalia in the wake of the Court’s Boumediene decision all continued to peddle the discredited Republican talking point about “30 former Guantanamo detainees” who had “returned to the fight.” Now a devastating new report released Tuesday from Seton Hall professor Mark Denbeaux puts to rest the Scalia’s “urban legend.”

That figure of 30 terror recidivists unleashing a bloodbath had been debunked by earlier studies from Denbeaux’s team and recent investigations from the McClatchy papers. But Denbeaux’s updated analysis, including the revelations that the Defense Department itself backtracked from the infamous Gitmo 30 in July 2007 and May 2008, shows the extent to which Justice Scalia engaged in cherry-picking dubious data to bolster his blood-curdling Boumediene dissent last week. And it hasn’t stopped the exaggerated number of Gitmo repeat terrorists (like the cry of “worse than Dred Scott“) from becoming a standard Republican talking point since the Court’s restoration of habeas corpus last week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Scalia gets hysterical when his side doesn't prevail
and he really doesn't care about the truth when he writes his dissents. It's the hysteria that matters.

Everyone knows the only recent decision "worse than Dred Scott" was Bush v. Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. As yo uprobably know "Dred Scott" is code-speak to the right-to-lifers
I didn;t know this until W busted out a Dred Scott reference in one of the debates. Everyone the next day was laughing about it but here on DU I learned that this is a ;-) and a nod to the right-to-lifers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Oh, yes... but please refresh my memory
I knew that but I forget now the significance of Dred Scott to the fundies...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Dred Scott was a ruling that said that slaves were property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

and therefore they had no right to claim emancipation even if they were taken to a free state and they couldn't sue for freedom because they were not citizens.

Fundies oppose this ruling-it was of course overturned later.

Fundies have twisted this into saying that fetuses aren't property either so a woman has no right to do with it as she made need to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I am familiar with Dred Scott
but forgot how the fundies connected it to their stuff.

Now I remember... Thanks!

I remember we did have some chuckles with their twisted logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. integrity doesn't get in the way of make a short lived political point to these creeps
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Scalia's "ubran legend" i.e. lie...
PLEASE DEMOCRATS IMPEACH THAT BASTARD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. DoD leaks to CNN -Sen. Minority report cites CNN news story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Typical Cheney tap dance, no? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's complete bullshit. And Denbeaux said as much in the last hearing
of the House Subcommittee on Human Rights, iirc, DeLaHunt's committee. He laid it out plain as day, using the Pentagon's own paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. So, do the correct facts change Scalia's opinion?
I'm guessing they do not. Fat Tony has his opinion, and it's rebuttal-proof because no amount of facts will overturn an a priori Scalia opinion. In fact, submitting cases, presenting briefs and arguments and the other trappings of a Supreme Court matter are pretty much wasted on Scalia and his band of gerbils. They provide their conclusion, then comb the record for support. Somewhere along the way, someone either asserted the dubious ground of Scalia's conclusion, or considered it and rejected it, or considered it and decided that it was outweighed by other grounds, and Scalia ignores everything else in his quest for that one butt nugget of support for his crazy conclusion.

So what if 30 former Guantanamo detainees haven't really returned to the fight? Someone somewhere said it, even if they later repudiated it, and it's good enough for Fat Tony to re-write the last 8 centuries of western jurisprudence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC