Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture

[GrGr]

Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture
Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Link

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

"We don't pretend to be some Western Mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world," Scalia told a BBC interviewer Tuesday, defending narrow interpretation of the reach the US Constitution gives the nine justices on the country's high court.

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

"Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to extract information that is crucial to the society?" Scalia asked.

In the BBC interview, which aired on Radio 4's Law in Action, Scalia suggested that it would be inappropriate for the court to deliberately outlaw certain tactics, such as waterboarding. (The Bush administration recently acknowledged using the simulated drowning procedure at least three times on terror detainees.) Scalia said tactics critics have described as torture could be usable in so-called "ticking time bomb" scenarios or even when such a pressing deadline does not exist.

"It may not be a bomb in LA," he said. "But it may be, where is this group [believed to be plotting an attack on the US]?"

This audio is from BBC's Radio 4, broadcast February 12, 2008.

Good news guys in the US military. If you serve overseas you are not covered by the US Constitution you swore to upheld. You can go ahead and torture Muslims all you want. It's totally ok to go Gestapo on their sorry asses.

Hehehe, this creep should be run out of town in disgrace. Instead he is actually a member of the highest court in the US baffling as it may seem. Wtf has gone wrong in the US.

 

[Lemon law]

Scalia is a disgrace to humanity IMHO. A little piece of Hitler alive and well. Sadly, he will never learn.

 

[Harvey]

Maybe the honorable justices need some hands on experience being honorably tortured to give them a better understanding of U.S. and international laws against it.

 

[sandorski]

Damn, I thought Judges went by the Law to make a decision. Silly me.

 

[fskimospy]

Nah, he's not really that far off. The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that. The thing is that the constitution doesn't bar murder either and yet that's still illegal. We have passed other laws and entered other agreements that have made torture illegal... so the constitutional issue isn't really particularly important.

As far as the US courts not having any jurisdiction over Gitmo, well he's lost that fight several times now. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard... since the treaty we signed says that the US has complete jurisdiction over Gitmo. As was asked in oral arguments in one of those cases, if US law doesn't hold there, what law possibly could? Cuban? hahahaha.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

What a step backwards..

 

[CaptnKirk]

He's justifiably promoting old family Cathloic traditions passed down from generation to generation since the Spanich Inquisition.
John 'Torquemada' Scalia knows family values.

 

[CptObvious]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that.

Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is torture but a cruel punishment for not divulging information or confessing?

 

[Slick5150]

That man truly is a frightening human being.

 

[sandmanwake]

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that.

Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is torture but a cruel punishment for not divulging information or confessing?

I think the thinking is that if we do it often enough, it'd no longer be unusual, therefore not cruel and unusual.

 

[Rainsford]

Man, and here I thought that the bar was set pretty high for supreme court justices. I mean, what sort of crazy-ass legal theory would suggest that US courts have jurisdiction over actions taken by US troops...that's just crazy talk :roll:

Honestly, the supreme court can't be a partisan playground. Right, left, center, whatever...can we ignore all that and search across the entire political spectrum to find people who aren't fucking retarded?

 

[OrByte]

what an A hole.

 

[CptObvious]

Originally posted by: sandmanwake

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that.

Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is torture but a cruel punishment for not divulging information or confessing?

I think the thinking is that if we do it often enough, it'd no longer be unusual, therefore not cruel and unusual.

I suppose, but I would have expected more from Scalia. After all, he is the court's leading proponent of textualism (reading the Constitution strictly), but you'd never know it from reading his quotes in the above article.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: sandmanwake

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that.

Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is torture but a cruel punishment for not divulging information or confessing?

I think the thinking is that if we do it often enough, it'd no longer be unusual, therefore not cruel and unusual.

I suppose, but I would have expected more from Scalia. After all, he is the court's leading proponent of textualism (reading the Constitution strictly), but you'd never know it from reading his quotes in the above article.

No, he's not...that's just an intellectually lazy way for him to justify certain viewpoints when it's convenient. The only thing Scalia is the leading proponent of is being a douchebag.

 

[jonks]

Vote republican, and the next president will throw 2 more of his clones on the bench, for a psycho majority that'll last decades. No thank you.

 

[Atreus21]

Did anyone listen to the actual audio interview?

If you did, you realize the interviewer took a few things out of context from audio to text. When Scalia was talking about holding people indefinately, he referred to a court holding a witness until they answer the question, as a means of coercing the witness to answer, as the witness should.

Opinions aside, Scalia is only doing his job. He's not called upon to decide what's right and wrong. He says, simply, that there is no explicit provision in the constitution protecting anyone who is not a US citizen from anything.

Scalia is one of the smartest men on the SCOTUS, certainly more educated than any two of us in this forum. Let's not arbitrarily insult him. If you listen to the audio version, you'll realize that the text version was spun simply because parts of the interview were excluded.

 

[superstition]

Smart or not, his positions on many issues do not come from a superior understanding of the Constitution. For instance, his Lawrence dissent had a number of logical flaws, and one of his clever bits of argumentation actually undermines his position! Scalia is one of the most political "activist" judges I've seen.

 

[xeemzor]

Originally posted by: superstition
Smart or not, his positions on many issues do not come from a superior understanding of the Constitution. For instance, his Lawrence dissent had a number of logical flaws, and one of his clever bits of argumentation actually undermines his position! Scalia is one of the most political "activist" judges I've seen.

As much as I hate Scalia, I'd still have to reserve that title for Burger.

 

[DealMonkey]

What a dick. Scalia and former AG Gonzales must be BFFs.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don?t get the logic. American laws should apply to American citizens universally.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that.

Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is torture but a cruel punishment for not divulging information or confessing?

Off topic here

Has there been any landmark cases anyone knows where the 1-2million dollar bails we sometimes see is justifiable, since Amendment 8 would make them unconstituional.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Scalia is one of the smartest men on the SCOTUS, certainly more educated than any two of us in this forum. Let's not arbitrarily insult him. If you listen to the audio version, you'll realize that the text version was spun simply because parts of the interview were excluded.

there are plenty of very competatant lawyers, engineers and others on this forum.

stop pandering and fluffing, theres no reason so suspect he is any great intellect.

 

[StageLeft]

911 was the best thing that ever happened to those who want to turn this country's moral and social evolution back.

BTW, I am sure scalia is smarter than me. Kim Jong IL may very well be smarter than me, too. Notice I didn't bring Godwins law into this, but yeah you get the point. Intellect is never tied entirely with being right, though.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Did anyone listen to the actual audio interview?

If you did, you realize the interviewer took a few things out of context from audio to text. When Scalia was talking about holding people indefinately, he referred to a court holding a witness until they answer the question, as a means of coercing the witness to answer, as the witness should.

Opinions aside, Scalia is only doing his job. He's not called upon to decide what's right and wrong. He says, simply, that there is no explicit provision in the constitution protecting anyone who is not a US citizen from anything.

Scalia is one of the smartest men on the SCOTUS, certainly more educated than any two of us in this forum. Let's not arbitrarily insult him. If you listen to the audio version, you'll realize that the text version was spun simply because parts of the interview were excluded.

I did hear the interview. Scalia was relying on the "ticking bomb in LA while you have the one person who knows where it is" argument (as absurdly far out & illusory as that scenario is) to justify his logic.

Has he forgotten that US law bans torture? And does not allow torture under any circumstances? Among other laws the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention (which was ratified and its provisions have been codified into US law) and as a signatory we are bound by it's tenets unless they directly conflict with the US Constitution. By condoning torture we are disobeying US laws. Is that what he is advocating?

As to your assertions about non citizens, the amendment does not state 'citizen' anywhere. If you read the constitution the framers made a distinction between 'citizen' and 'person' which means it's provisions apply to anyone under US jurisdiction.

He may have a high IQ but I still think he is a moral douchebag who has done more harm to the concept of a fair Supreme court than any other judge in recent times. A true partisan activist judge using the guise of a "constructionist".

A sad reflection on the US Supreme court.

 

[senseamp]

Strict Constructionism in action. That is why you can never trust Republicans on judges. They actually think that Scalia and Thomas are model judges to be emulated.