Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture

[Jhhnn]

Scalia watches too much 24, and constructs a strawman argument-

"We don't pretend to be some Western Mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world"

That's not the question at hand, and he knows it. The decisions the SCOTUS are called upon to make define right and wrong for this country, particularly the executive branch, wrt torture and detention.

And this bit of self-serving sophistry is completely over the top-

"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.

Yes, it is obvious. He presumes the information to be crucial prior to knowing what it is or if the victim even possesses that knowledge, as do all those who advocate torture. Which has led to "harsh interrogation" of hundreds of people in Gitmo, probably thousands worldwide, people who were later released and admitted to have no information of value and to be no threat...

Scalia reflects the mentality of a witch hunt, where the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than that of our founders, who demanded that the burden of proof be on the accusers, the govt...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm going to play a very limited devil's advocate here. If Scalia is saying that it's OK to torture someone because they aren't US citizens then I'd say he's a piece of crap at best.

What we don't want are judges that use their personal sense of right and wrong to determine what the Constitution says. That creates a situation where the rule of citizens is usurped by the rule of judges.

If you think about it, this is Congresses responsibility. Congress can make a law regarding overseas citizens. If you live overseas, you still pay taxes for example.

"No citizen shall commit torture or cause torture to be committed to any person regardless of nationality or location."

Let's have Congress make that law and have a President not veto it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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.

thats a cop out mike....
there is nobody on these forums who can hold a candle to Scalia!!

There is a huge difference between competent and being in Scalia`s league!


Scalia is correct!! If you don`t twist and mis represent what he said!!

 

[Rainsford]

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.

Oh, well no problem then :roll: It's not like the right to avoid self-incrimination is one of our founding principles or anything.

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.

That is not even remotely true, although that's not what Scalia said either. He seemed to be suggesting that the legal system shouldn't cover US government personnel no matter what they do to foreigners...which doesn't sound quite right to me.

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.

Smart and ethical are two completely different things. My objection isn't that he's dumb, my objection is that he's a partisan hack who frequently seems to ignore strictly following the constitution when it suits his political views.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 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.

thats a cop out mike....
there is nobody on these forums who can hold a candle to Scalia!!

There is a huge difference between competent and being in Scalia`s league!

I'm sorry if this offends you but your declarations above are complete and utter horseshit.

You seem to think that position = intellect. You couldn't be further from the truth. Bush is the freaking POTUS and an ivy league MBA and I guarantee you that he truly is of average intelligence at best.

Here's an example for you....Ted Kaczynski (yes the unibomber) has an IQ somewhere in the high 160s according to reports. Scalia couldn't touch him in the arena of intelligence if he added Clarence Thomas' IQ to his. Here is a man that lived in a shack without running water or electricity. Does that mean that he "isn't in Scalia's league"?

While I don't think that Scalia is a stupid man by any measure....your assertion that his position and/or education make him smarter than everyone on these boards is...well....stupid.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While I don't think that Scalia is a stupid man by any measure....your assertion that his position and/or education make him smarter than everyone on these boards is...well....stupid.

Let's be honest here. Scalia is a wee bit smarter than your average P&N visitor. And I'd wager that he's smarter than anyone who has posted in this thread (myself included). You don't make your way to Chief Justice of the USSC on stupidity.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make him an imbecile.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While I don't think that Scalia is a stupid man by any measure....your assertion that his position and/or education make him smarter than everyone on these boards is...well....stupid.

Let's be honest here. Scalia is a wee bit smarter than your average P&N visitor. And I'd wager that he's smarter than anyone who has posted in this thread (myself included). You don't make your way to Chief Justice of the USSC on stupidity.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make him an imbecile.

Someone should tell Roberts that he has been demoted real quick.

And I didn't say that he was an imbecile or that the average P&Ner is smarter than he is. Only that his position does not equate to him being Einstein and that there probably are a handful on this board that can match or surpass him in the realm of intelligence.

I'm sure that I can pull up cases where people of great intelligence have had a lot less prolific careers than Scalia but are just as or more intelligent than he is.

 

[Nitemare]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't military and civilian courts like apples and oranges?

The military acts under a different code of conduct and ethics else they could not do their job effectively.

Nicholson in A Few Good Men:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While I don't think that Scalia is a stupid man by any measure....your assertion that his position and/or education make him smarter than everyone on these boards is...well....stupid.

Let's be honest here. Scalia is a wee bit smarter than your average P&N visitor. And I'd wager that he's smarter than anyone who has posted in this thread (myself included). You don't make your way to Chief Justice of the USSC on stupidity.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make him an imbecile.

1. Being smarter and/or intelligent has nothing to do with being right or being moral or being ethical.
2. Being right or moral or ethical is a judgmental issue. Just because Scalia says so doesn't make it right/moral/ethical.
3. You obviously don't know enough about the SC. John Roberts is the Cheif Justice. Scalia is a judge with very conservative views and strongly pro the current administration. If he is the most important judge in your opinion that does not make him the Chief Justice.
4. I'll quote Rainsford: "My objection isn't that he's dumb, my objection is that he's a partisan hack who frequently seems to ignore strictly following the constitution when it suits his political views."

Stick to Obama threads - you're doing good there.

 

[Pabster]

I apologize on my citation of Scalia as Chief Justice. Hey, even I make mistakes :laugh:

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't military and civilian courts like apples and oranges?

The military acts under a different code of conduct and ethics else they could not do their job effectively.

Nicholson in A Few Good Men:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

And in the next scene he gets arrested

Movies are just that - movies.

 

[piasabird]

What about the part about Cruel and inhuman treatment?

The concept is that we dont want our soldiers to be tortured, so we dont torture other people.

Terrorists on the other hand are not covered by the Geneva Convention. They do not wear the uniform of a country. They are also not enemy combatants. They should be shot as spies, or tried for war crimes.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't military and civilian courts like apples and oranges?

The military acts under a different code of conduct and ethics else they could not do their job effectively.

Nicholson in A Few Good Men:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

And in the next scene he gets arrested

Movies are just that - movies.

It was also a military court...not the Supreme Court for civilians

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What about the part about Cruel and inhuman treatment?

The concept is that we dont want our soldiers to be tortured, so we dont torture other people.

Terrorists on the other hand are not covered by the Geneva Convention. They do not wear the uniform of a country. They are also not enemy combatants. They should be shot as spies, or tried for war crimes.

Of course they are covered by the Geneva Convention, noone is outside the law. The Nazis made the same argument and had Gestapo torture terrorists (only they pretended it wasn't torture, that should ring a bell eh). But that argument was shot down by the allied courts back then. Funny (and disturbing) to hear the US argue like Nazis now.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't military and civilian courts like apples and oranges?

The military acts under a different code of conduct and ethics else they could not do their job effectively.

Nicholson in A Few Good Men:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

And in the next scene he gets arrested

Movies are just that - movies.

It was also a military court...not the Supreme Court for civilians

So military courts can contravene the law of the land? Or the Constitution? Or even the Supreme Court?

Military courts may have special rules but they have to be within the framework of the law of the country.

 

[Atreus21]

The whole issue here is whether or not torture is permissable under any circumstances.

In the audio interview, Scalia asks whether or not we would adhere to our zero-tolerance toward torture way of thinking in practice, and says we would most likely not.

If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm, something tells me you wouldn't think twice about coercing the information out of him by any means, and his pain be damned. I would do the exact same thing. It only makes sense.

Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

It's not an easy position to hold, because I hate the words, "Greater good." They reek of corruption and abuse.

I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

Okay, let me have it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The whole issue here is whether or not torture is permissable under any circumstances.

In the audio interview, Scalia asks whether or not we would adhere to our zero-tolerance toward torture way of thinking in practice, and says we would most likely not.

If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm, something tells me you wouldn't think twice about coercing the information out of him by any means, and his pain be damned. I would do the exact same thing. It only makes sense.

Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

It's not an easy position to hold, because I hate the words, "Greater good." They reek of corruption and abuse.

I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

Okay, let me have it.

We have sentenced a lot of people to death because we KNEW that they were guilty of crimes only to be freed years later.

Under NO circumstances is torture permissible.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The whole issue here is whether or not torture is permissable under any circumstances.

In the audio interview, Scalia asks whether or not we would adhere to our zero-tolerance toward torture way of thinking in practice, and says we would most likely not.

If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm, something tells me you wouldn't think twice about coercing the information out of him by any means, and his pain be damned. I would do the exact same thing. It only makes sense.

Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

It's not an easy position to hold, because I hate the words, "Greater good." They reek of corruption and abuse.

I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

Okay, let me have it.

We have sentenced a lot of people to death because we KNEW that they were guilty of crimes only to be freed years later.

Under NO circumstances is torture permissible.

Human error is inevitable in any human institution.

But we can't refuse to act out of the fear of being mistaken. We must be diligent in our investigation, but we can't be ruled by our doubts. That is central to the function of society, and one of the main qualities of a leader. We're wrong sometimes, yes. But we're right more often. But we're never right if we don't act.

If we're going to make any attempt at justice, any attempt at serving right and not wrong, we must subject ourself to the reality that innocents will suffer by our mistakes, which we will make inevitably, and they will be wrongfully punished.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The whole issue here is whether or not torture is permissable under any circumstances.

In the audio interview, Scalia asks whether or not we would adhere to our zero-tolerance toward torture way of thinking in practice, and says we would most likely not.

If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm, something tells me you wouldn't think twice about coercing the information out of him by any means, and his pain be damned. I would do the exact same thing. It only makes sense.

Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

It's not an easy position to hold, because I hate the words, "Greater good." They reek of corruption and abuse.

I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

Okay, let me have it.

We have sentenced a lot of people to death because we KNEW that they were guilty of crimes only to be freed years later.

Under NO circumstances is torture permissible.

Human error is inevitable in any human institution.

But we can't refuse to act out of the fear of being mistaken. We must be diligent in our investigation, but we can't be ruled by our doubts. That is central to the function of society, and one of the main qualities of a leader. We're wrong sometimes, yes. But we're right more often. But we're never right if we don't act.

If we're going to make any attempt at justice, we must subject ourself to the reality that innocents will occasionally be wrongfully punished.

The rule of law is most central and underlying factor to the function of our society and the ability to act within the confines of it is the most defining quality of a leader.

The fact that human error is inevitable is in and of itself the most important reason for not relying on the "We know this person has the information" line of reasoning.

Just as you can be wrong by acting, I would also disagree that we are never right by not acting.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm

As implausible and illusory scenario, as asinine as Scalia's ticking bomb theory.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

That is exactly why you don't start down that slippery slope. It's fine for you & I to discuss this topic, but for a sitting SC Judge to open this can of worms says poor judgment.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

And how are you sure you know for certain that you have the right person with the right knowledge at the right time?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm

As implausible and illusory scenario, as asinine as Scalia's ticking bomb theory.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

That is exactly why you don't start down that slippery slope. It's fine for you & I to discuss this topic, but for a sitting SC Judge to open this can of worms says poor judgment.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

And how are you sure you know for certain that you have the right person with the right knowledge at the right time?

Just for sake of argument.

Your 12 year old daughter disappears. Someone rings your doorbell and walks in.

He hands you pics of her being put in a coffin and buried alive. She has one hour of air.

You say "What do you want, I'll do anything".

He says "I want to see you suffer and for her to die"

Do you:

Write your daughter off. Do nothing.

Call the police knowing there is no way they can find her in time.

Beat the shit out of him and try to extract the information by any and all means?

Being a father, guess what? I wouldn't reject the last option and let her die because of my sensibilities. I'd do everything I could think of to make him talk, and heaven help him if he lies.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If your family has had a time-bomb strapped to them, and you know the one man who can disable the bomb remotely, yet refuses to do so out of a desire to do you harm

As implausible and illusory scenario, as asinine as Scalia's ticking bomb theory.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Yes, torture is permissable under certain circumstances. I could care less about what the Geneva convention asserts. Once you make that assertion, the argument turns into, "under what circumstances is torture permissable?" "How extreme a method can be used, and for how long?"

That is exactly why you don't start down that slippery slope. It's fine for you & I to discuss this topic, but for a sitting SC Judge to open this can of worms says poor judgment.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm not advocating wanton torture of anyone we suspect to have information. I'm saying that torturing someone who we know to have information that will save lives, yes refuses to disclose it, is in some cases a necessity.

And how are you sure you know for certain that you have the right person with the right knowledge at the right time?

Implausible doesn't mean impossible. It's a simple hypothetical situation to which I'm requesting your response, rather than dismissal.

It's never poor judgement to think about an argument. Poor judgement is applying poor reasoning to a judgement. Scalia's job, as he says, is to interpret the constitution, not apply natural law, which we are debating, as he sees it. I think he's being quite prudent in his relunctance to take a stand on the issue as it relates to the constitution.

Like I said earlier, we can never be sure we have the right person. There's always the outside chance that, no matter how diligent our effort, we can still wrongfully incriminate someone. But we can't be deterred by that.

 

[Jhhnn]

How quickly the Bushfans resort to implausible scenarios having nothing to do with what has actually transpired in the realm of who's torturing who...

Let's stick to reality, OK? There is no ticking bomb, no daughter buried alive, none of that has happened or is happening. Very straightforward. What has happened and continues to happen is that people are being tortured in an attempt to obtain information that they don't have. The huge number of people interrogated, released and pending release from gitmo and our facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan bear witness to that fact, while the number of people actually facing charges is quite small. Gitmo, for example, is just a fishing expedition and a PR stunt rolled into one, despite claims to the contrary.

The only positive thing to be said about it all is that people have, in fact, been released- that our agents haven't taken it as far as the inquisition, where all subjects would ultimately confess to anything, just to end the pain...

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How quickly the Bushfans resort to implausible scenarios having nothing to do with what has actually transpired in the realm of who's torturing who...

Let's stick to reality, OK? There is no ticking bomb, no daughter buried alive, none of that has happened or is happening. Very straightforward. What has happened and continues to happen is that people are being tortured in an attempt to obtain information that they don't have. The huge number of people interrogated, released and pending release from gitmo and our facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan bear witness to that fact, while the number of people actually facing charges is quite small. Gitmo, for example, is just a fishing expedition and a PR stunt rolled into one, despite claims to the contrary.

The only positive thing to be said about it all is that people have, in fact, been released- that our agents haven't taken it as far as the inquisition, where all subjects would ultimately confess to anything, just to end the pain...

Why is it that no one can say what they would do in a hypothetical situation? Again, implausible doesn't mean impossible. People ask me all the time if I would have an abortion if my girlfriend got pregnant, for the express point of seeing if I will contradict myself. I don't see why it's so wrong to ask what you would do in a given situation.

IF you were put into the position I or Hayabusa mentioned, would you resort to torture? It doesn't seem to me to be a difficult question to answer.

It's not so difficult to give a yes or no.

 

[OrByte]

some people watch too much "24" with all these "what if" scenarios...

Scalia isn't Jack Bauer...I'm pretty sure Jack Bauer would shoot people who think like Scalia.