Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture

[yllus]

From a strictly technical point of view, it would seem that Justice Scalia is correct. His place (as a court judge) is not to liberally slather decisions with his arbitrary personal beliefs of what is right, and then to repurpose sections of the Constitution to fit. I don't believe that the 8th Amendment covers the situation of an interrogator torturing a suspect.

It's funny actually - if he's this even-handed on all matters that come before him, you folks should actually be pretty happy that he's on your Supreme Court. Today it's an issue that the vast majority would wish he do a little creative interpretation upon - but what if tomorrow's issue relates to abortion, stem cells or religion? Would you wish for him to be as creative then? Can't have it both ways.

Keep in mind that I am absolutely against all forms of torture, believe it is completely useless as a tool to extract information and feel that G-Bay should be shut down (or at least stop housing suspected terrorists). I'm simply not allowing my emotions cloud my judgment on the matter.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: yllus
From a strictly technical point of view, it would seem that Justice Scalia is correct. His place (as a court judge) is not to liberally slather decisions with his arbitrary personal beliefs of what is right, and then to repurpose sections of the Constitution to fit. I don't believe that the 8th Amendment covers the situation of an interrogator torturing a suspect.

It's funny actually - if he's this even-handed on all matters that come before him, you folks should actually be pretty happy that he's on your Supreme Court. Today it's an issue that the vast majority would wish he do a little creative interpretation upon - but what if tomorrow's issue relates to abortion, stem cells or religion? Would you wish for him to be as creative then? Can't have it both ways.

Keep in mind that I am absolutely against all forms of torture, believe it is complete useless as a tool to extract information and feel that G-Bay should be shut down (or at least stop housing suspected terrorists). I'm simply not allowing my emotions cloud my judgment on the matter.

Good point. Thanks for a level-headed opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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...

One does not have to be a fanboy to ask under what circumstances are certain actions allowable, morally if not legally. I've never been a supporter of Gitmo, nor of prisoners being taken and tortured. I do see people making sweeping comments of how certain behaviors are or are not permissible under all circumstances. When asked specifics they duck the question and go back to glittering generalities.

I'll be blunt.
If I had personal personal knowledge that a nuclear device was planted in a city and a very limited time to act, and further I had an individual before me that was bragging that he was glad to meet his maker and provided me with enough details to convince me he was complicit, I would extract any information by any means. I might go to jail, but I wouldn't let millions die. This is for me a clear case of "do what you must, and take the consequences afterwards"

Likely scenario? No, not at all, but possible nevertheless. Does that make me a supporter of mistreating prisoners who happen to get caught? No it does not.

I'm saying that only in the most extreme circumstances are extreme actions justified. Short of that, HELL NO.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

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...

One does not have to be a fanboy to ask under what circumstances are certain actions allowable, morally if not legally. I've never been a supporter of Gitmo, nor of prisoners being taken and tortured. I do see people making sweeping comments of how certain behaviors are or are not permissible under all circumstances. When asked specifics they duck the question and go back to glittering generalities.

I'll be blunt.
If I had personal personal knowledge that a nuclear device was planted in a city and a very limited time to act, and further I had an individual before me that was bragging that he was glad to meet his maker and provided me with enough details to convince me he was complicit, I would extract any information by any means. I might go to jail, but I wouldn't let millions die. This is for me a clear case of "do what you must, and take the consequences afterwards"

Likely scenario? No, not at all, but possible nevertheless. Does that make me a supporter of mistreating prisoners who happen to get caught? No it does not.

I'm saying that only in the most extreme circumstances are extreme actions justified. Short of that, HELL NO.

But that has nothing to do with today's argument under today's circumstances involving torture, foreigners, citizenry, and secret military bases etc etc.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you in your hypothetical...but it is really apples and oranges no?

In any event, I guess you make a valid point...as far as hypotheticals go.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

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...

One does not have to be a fanboy to ask under what circumstances are certain actions allowable, morally if not legally. I've never been a supporter of Gitmo, nor of prisoners being taken and tortured. I do see people making sweeping comments of how certain behaviors are or are not permissible under all circumstances. When asked specifics they duck the question and go back to glittering generalities.

I'll be blunt.
If I had personal personal knowledge that a nuclear device was planted in a city and a very limited time to act, and further I had an individual before me that was bragging that he was glad to meet his maker and provided me with enough details to convince me he was complicit, I would extract any information by any means. I might go to jail, but I wouldn't let millions die. This is for me a clear case of "do what you must, and take the consequences afterwards"

Likely scenario? No, not at all, but possible nevertheless. Does that make me a supporter of mistreating prisoners who happen to get caught? No it does not.

I'm saying that only in the most extreme circumstances are extreme actions justified. Short of that, HELL NO.

But that has nothing to do with today's argument under today's circumstances involving torture, foreigners, citizenry, and secret military bases etc etc.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you in your hypothetical...but it is really apples and oranges no?

In any event, I guess you make a valid point...as far as hypotheticals go.

We have no disagreement here at all. My frustration is that some people look at things as absolutes which is absurd. Personally I think this is the responsibility of Congress, not the Courts. My trouble with Scalia is that he treats the subject glibly. If I were in his position, I'd want to interfere, however I understand that a justice doesn't feel that he should be writing law. He's just too dismissive of the subject though. That's definitely not right.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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.

yes, a witness can be held in contempt of court if the witness refuses to comply with questioning. that is why barry bonds' trainer sat in jail for a year (eventually his testimony wasn't needed so he was let out). it's non-criminal contempt, so, technically, isn't punishment for a criminal act.

but, there isn't any civilian court overseeing the Guantanamo bay detainees non-cooperation, iirc. a witness is let out as soon as they testify. that's doubtful for the Guantanamo detainees.

 

[Moonbeam]

The question of the legality of torture should never arise and among moral people it never does. Unfortunately we have begun to elect scum because so many of us are scum. Only scum are ever pushed to question if torture is legal.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: 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.

It comes down to what I said before. You & I can argue such hypothetical (and academic) scenarios all we want and it won't matter. But for a sitting SC judge to jump in say he condones torture in some form or under some circumstances, is a different ballgame. He may have to pass judgment on it some day.

If his job is to uphold the constitution then he is also obliged to uphold the laws that congress makes (as laid out in the constitution). And congress has banned torture under federal statute 18 U.S.C. 2340A, also Article 3 of the Geneva Convention which is coded in US law (also see link on USMJ code). If he is advocating allowing torture then he is breaking the law as the law has no exceptions.

 

[manowar821]

I don't think he's a valid human being. No compassion, all nationalist, a pig.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are comparing the emotional response of a parent to cold-blooded, premeditated,
instutionalized torture? Our Federal goons torture in secret now, how would they abuse
the practise if it were legalized?

 

[Harvey]

Let's get down to reality, folks. The first paragraph of the article at the OP's link says:

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.

U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 outlaws torture, as defined here:

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter --

(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from --

• (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
  
  (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
  
  (C) the threat of imminent death; or
  
  (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

The penalties and and jurisdiction for the crime are specified, here

§ 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.

-- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction. -- There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if --

• (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
  
  (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy. -- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Torture is clearly illegal under U.S. law, and U.S. courts clearly have jurisdiction over any citizen of the U.S. who commits torture anywhere in the world, including the Traitor in Chief.

If the report accurately states Scalia's position, he's full of shit. :|

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What a dick. Scalia and former AG Gonzales must be BFFs.

Speaking of that forgetful little prick, I was watching A Jon Stewart Show last night and he interviewed a guy who did a book on the 9/11 report. He (intentionally) didn't drop many names but he didn't hesitate to say Gonzales was the biggest roadblock to it. Why am I not shocked?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailorI 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.

Yeah, right. Jack Bauer wants to talk to you.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't think you're making the argument you think you are making. I can certainly see how it would be understandable that you might resort to torture in such an extreme situation, but that doesn't make it morally right. You said it yourself, you would ignore your sensibilities in order to save your daughter. What parent wouldn't? But that's because your daughter is more important to you than concepts like morality and ethics and all that...just like children always tend to be for their parents. However, you'd still be doing some immoral...having a justification for doing it doesn't change that.

I honestly don't see why you keep harping on this point...it really has nothing to do with whether or not the US should torture people as a matter of policy. You and Atreus21 appear to be taking the intellectually dishonest way out in this debate, rather than trying to argue about torture as a policy, you just come up with these ridiculously implausible scenarios, suggest torture is justified in these narrow situations, and leave unstated the "conclusion" that torture should therefore be permissible as a matter of policy.

With a little creative work, I imagine it's possible to come up with a scenario in which virtually anyone will do virtually anything...that doesn't mean we can draw ANY conclusions about the broader issue.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: 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.

You are comparing the emotional response of a parent to cold-blooded, premeditated,
instutionalized torture? Our Federal goons torture in secret now, how would they abuse
the practise if it were legalized?

The comparison is valid for the following reason. If torture is permissable in some situations, we need to stop arguing over whether torture is permissable, and rather focus on when and in what situations it is permissable.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't think you're making the argument you think you are making. I can certainly see how it would be understandable that you might resort to torture in such an extreme situation, but that doesn't make it morally right. You said it yourself, you would ignore your sensibilities in order to save your daughter. What parent wouldn't? But that's because your daughter is more important to you than concepts like morality and ethics and all that...just like children always tend to be for their parents. However, you'd still be doing some immoral...having a justification for doing it doesn't change that.

I honestly don't see why you keep harping on this point...it really has nothing to do with whether or not the US should torture people as a matter of policy. You and Atreus21 appear to be taking the intellectually dishonest way out in this debate, rather than trying to argue about torture as a policy, you just come up with these ridiculously implausible scenarios, suggest torture is justified in these narrow situations, and leave unstated the "conclusion" that torture should therefore be permissible as a matter of policy.

With a little creative work, I imagine it's possible to come up with a scenario in which virtually anyone will do virtually anything...that doesn't mean we can draw ANY conclusions about the broader issue.

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

It's not about you. It's about whether the Supreme Court will condone it. The unequivocal answer is no because SC does not make laws, it only upholds laws and the law is clear - torture is against the law (and not only against US citizens) in any form, at any time & for any reason - no exceptions.

And for a Supreme Court judge to say it can be allowed is wrong. He is breaking the law, in spirit if not in person.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: piasabird
They should be shot as spies, or tried for war crimes.

Bullets are cheap. I'd go for that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

You FINALLY get it!!!

What an individual would do in a given situation is not comparable to what an institution should do as a matter of policy.

I'll give you a "just as implausible and ridiculous" scenario.

An individual walks into an electronics store and sees an 8GB flash drive and he doesn't have any money. He decides to steal it because he really needs to be able to take his homework from his personal PC to his school to give to his teacher or he will fail the entire year.

Using your logic, because individuals feel that it is okay to steal in certain scenarios, the company should be able to have random armed robberies of anyone that walks in their door.

Right? It's the same leap that you are trying to make that the country as a whole is morally justified to systematically do what an individual parent would do in a situation of emotional turmoil.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

It's not about you. It's about whether the Supreme Court will condone it. The unequivocal answer is no because SC does not make laws, it only upholds laws and the law is clear - torture is against the law (and not only against US citizens) in any form, at any time & for any reason - no exceptions.

And for a Supreme Court judge to say it can be allowed is wrong. He is breaking the law, in spirit if not in person.

The law is not clear. If the constitution made it clear, Scalia of all justices would know it. The SC does not uphold the law. It interprets it. His interpretation is that there is no provision in the constitution against torture.

He's not saying it can be allowed. All he said was that, under the US Constitution, there's no provision explicitly made prohibiting it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

You FINALLY get it!!!

What an individual would do in a given situation is not comparable to what an institution should do as a matter of policy.

I'll give you a "just as implausible and ridiculous" scenario.

An individual walks into an electronics store and sees an 8GB flash drive and he doesn't have any money. He decides to steal it because he really needs to be able to take his homework from his personal PC to his school to give to his teacher or he will fail the entire year.

Using your logic, because individuals feel that it is okay to steal in certain scenarios, the company should be able to have random armed robberies of anyone that walks in their door.

Right? It's the same leap that you are trying to make that the country as a whole is morally justified to systematically do what an individual parent would do in a situation of emotional turmoil.

I say that some ends justify some means. I do not say that all ends justify all means. In your example, failing an entire year is not justification enough to warrant robbery. And there are other methods of data transfer from a personal PC than just a flash drive. Not to mention, the student is responsible for his passing or failing the class, in most cases. In my or Hayabusa's example, we are not responsible for the situation. It was forced upon us by someone who wished harm upon us.

For my example, I say that, in cases where many lives hang in the balance, extreme measures may be called for and acceptable.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't think you're making the argument you think you are making. I can certainly see how it would be understandable that you might resort to torture in such an extreme situation, but that doesn't make it morally right. You said it yourself, you would ignore your sensibilities in order to save your daughter. What parent wouldn't? But that's because your daughter is more important to you than concepts like morality and ethics and all that...just like children always tend to be for their parents. However, you'd still be doing some immoral...having a justification for doing it doesn't change that.

I honestly don't see why you keep harping on this point...it really has nothing to do with whether or not the US should torture people as a matter of policy. You and Atreus21 appear to be taking the intellectually dishonest way out in this debate, rather than trying to argue about torture as a policy, you just come up with these ridiculously implausible scenarios, suggest torture is justified in these narrow situations, and leave unstated the "conclusion" that torture should therefore be permissible as a matter of policy.

With a little creative work, I imagine it's possible to come up with a scenario in which virtually anyone will do virtually anything...that doesn't mean we can draw ANY conclusions about the broader issue.

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

Your confused. I don't think Hayabusa is saying torture is right, he's saying that in some situations torture is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't think you're making the argument you think you are making. I can certainly see how it would be understandable that you might resort to torture in such an extreme situation, but that doesn't make it morally right. You said it yourself, you would ignore your sensibilities in order to save your daughter. What parent wouldn't? But that's because your daughter is more important to you than concepts like morality and ethics and all that...just like children always tend to be for their parents. However, you'd still be doing some immoral...having a justification for doing it doesn't change that.

I honestly don't see why you keep harping on this point...it really has nothing to do with whether or not the US should torture people as a matter of policy. You and Atreus21 appear to be taking the intellectually dishonest way out in this debate, rather than trying to argue about torture as a policy, you just come up with these ridiculously implausible scenarios, suggest torture is justified in these narrow situations, and leave unstated the "conclusion" that torture should therefore be permissible as a matter of policy.

With a little creative work, I imagine it's possible to come up with a scenario in which virtually anyone will do virtually anything...that doesn't mean we can draw ANY conclusions about the broader issue.

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

Your confused. I don't think Hayabusa is saying torture is right, he's saying that in some situations torture is the lesser of two evils.

Well yes. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I should've said that, given the options, it was the only possible solution. For that reason, I would call it the "right" decision.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

You FINALLY get it!!!

What an individual would do in a given situation is not comparable to what an institution should do as a matter of policy.

I'll give you a "just as implausible and ridiculous" scenario.

An individual walks into an electronics store and sees an 8GB flash drive and he doesn't have any money. He decides to steal it because he really needs to be able to take his homework from his personal PC to his school to give to his teacher or he will fail the entire year.

Using your logic, because individuals feel that it is okay to steal in certain scenarios, the company should be able to have random armed robberies of anyone that walks in their door.

Right? It's the same leap that you are trying to make that the country as a whole is morally justified to systematically do what an individual parent would do in a situation of emotional turmoil.

I say that some ends justify some means. I do not say that all ends justify all means. In your example, failing an entire year is not justification enough to warrant robbery. And there are other methods of data transfer from a personal PC than just a flash drive. Not to mention, the student is responsible for his passing or failing the class, in most cases. In my or Hayabusa's example, we are not responsible for the situation. It was forced upon us by someone who wished harm upon us.

For my example, I say that, in cases where many lives hang in the balance, extreme measures may be called for and acceptable.

And in your scenario, I could say that one life isn't worth the hundreds or thousands that will instantly become subject to torture as a matter of policy.

There are other ways to get the information out of people that have it and not just torture. The government is responsible for following the laws of the land. Our laws clearly state that torture is illegal. Whether a situation is forced upon you or not is not justification for doing something illegal.

I would also say that, if you "only have an hour to get the information and stop the bomb/attack/whatever", by the time you actually torture the person, get everyone that needs to be deployed to stop whatever type of imminent threat there is the information and get to where it is supposed to occur and then actually find the perp and/or device and then actually defuse the situation.....your hour would have passed hours ago. In the end, you sold your morality down the river for nothing and now have opened the door to pandora's box of torture chambers.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

It's not about you. It's about whether the Supreme Court will condone it. The unequivocal answer is no because SC does not make laws, it only upholds laws and the law is clear - torture is against the law (and not only against US citizens) in any form, at any time & for any reason - no exceptions.

And for a Supreme Court judge to say it can be allowed is wrong. He is breaking the law, in spirit if not in person.

The law is not clear. If the constitution made it clear, Scalia of all justices would know it. The SC does not uphold the law. It interprets it. His interpretation is that there is no provision in the constitution against torture.

He's not saying it can be allowed. All he said was that, under the US Constitution, there's no provision explicitly made prohibiting it.

Agreed, SC 'interprets' the law. The constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, therefore any law passed by Congress is constitutionally 'approved' if you will. Therefore the Supreme Court has to look at laws which have the authority of the constitution, even if they are not written in that document.

Congress has ratified and coded the Geneva convention and other laws which ban torture, Scalia is wrong saying that because it is not in the constitution he is not obliged to follow the law.