More on Scalia

It's been pointed out to me that in his Boumediene dissent, Justice Scalia did some other wierd things:

1) He relied on the supposed "fact" that 30 former Gitmo detainees have committed acts of violence since their release, despite the fact that that "fact" was repudiated by its source, which was, incidentally, the U.S. Department of Defense.

2) He also described them as "returning to the battlefield" which is at best misleading -- most were not picked up on any literal battlefield, but Scalia may just mean the everywhere-battlefield of the global war on terror, which takes place wherever people have a potential to do evil. Even in that sense, it's a stretch, since there is pretty strong evidence that many of our detainees were pro-US in their sympathies, but turned into enemies of America after being kept under our gentle hospitality for several years alongside genuine al Qaeda. It's amazing how much anger you can generate by locking someone up for several years without a hearing, subjecting them to a kangeroo proceeding, torturing them, shitting on their religion, and then suddenly letting them out without any explanation or apology.

3) Of course, it's been noted that the end-of-America fears stoked in the opinion stem from the sought relief of the petitioners merely getting a hearing. Is it that a hearing will result in embarassing disclosures, or is it taken for granted that the petitioners would be granted release because there is no probable cause to detain them, and hasn't been for six years?

4) Finally, why should Scalia care? A few nights ago, he was on Charlie Rose expounding his purpoted adherence to originalism. As Antonin explained to his never-critical, never-skeptical friend Charlie, the trying thing about having a stricy judicial philosophy where the Constitution has a fixed meaning, is that you have no flexibility in your decisions. They are dictated by the philosophy. Hence you have nothing to horse-trade in negotiations, because your position is non-negotiable. Also, you get stuck with outcomes you don't like. Scalia particularly said that as a conservative, he was often forced to take pro-civil liberties views when dealing with prisoners. That's because you don't get to consider your own policy views regarding the effects that your decision will have. You just look at what Madison and the rest of them meant, and you go with it wherever it leads. So, I repeat, why should he care how many Gitmo releasees have gone on to bad things? What does that have to do with the text of the Suppression Clause or the views of Madison and Jefferson?