Justice Scalia: "So-Called Torture" OK

Justice Scalia: "So-Called Torture" OK

www.cbsnews.com

AP) One of the United States' top judges said in an interview broadcast in Britain on Tuesday that interrogators can inflict pain to obtain critical information about an imminent terrorist threat.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that aggressive interrogation could be appropriate to learn where a bomb was hidden shortly before it was set to explode or to discover the plans or whereabouts of a terrorist group.

"It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia told British Broadcasting Radio Corp.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
CIA boss: Waterboarding may be illegal
Waterboarders for God
U.S. To seek death penalty for Guantanamo prisoners with 9-11 ties
White House pushes waterboarding rationale

Makes one wonder if all the recent media attention to interrogation techniques isn't geared toward to getting us ready for revelations from Guantanamo.

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 13-2-2008 by kerontehe]

reply to post by kerontehe


Perhaps we should grab Antonio and see how much he likes waterboarding...as we "question" HIM about why HE voted to put Bush in office in 2000....but I digress!

Scalia has been on the wrong side of the issue with the American People for a looooong time!





[edit on 13-2-2008 by realmatrix]

Scalia is a moron whose two functioning neurons produced this statement:

"Is it obvious, that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to the society? I think it's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth."

Yes it is. It's answered by the Constitution....

Idiot.

Dear God!

What is the difference between "So-called Torture" and "actual Torture" in this lunatic's mind?

Read his words carefully and I think you'll see that there is NO true difference, as defined by law; it's all relative to the situation.


In essence: The Ends Justifies the Means.


In other words, what the Chief Justice of the US SUPREME COURT is advocating is a rule NOT by Law, but by Perceived CIRCUMSTANCE!!


Land of the Free....No more.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


How much discomfort=torture? Is there some amount of discomfort that falls below the threshold of torture, or should a detainee being interrogated have a constant feeling of serenity during the ordeal?
The problem with defining what torture is, is determining what it is not. Everyone will acknowledge that mutilation, electric shock, severe beatings, etc.. is torture. Is being tired, hungry/thirsty, cold/hot, scared, confused, or experiencing pain from a position they must stand or sit in, torture? I'm talking about things that leave no lasting physical harm, not allowing them to starve, die of thirst, hypothermia, etc..

Please read the CBSNEWS article, if you have not done so already.

In particular the following pasages:

"It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia told British Broadcasting Radio Corp.

(Emphasis added)



Sticking "something" under the fingernail is "So-called" torture?

There was no doubt regards the definition of such cruelty when it was performed against Allied soldiers in wars past!

And "smacking" some one in the face Can lead to permanent injury, even death, in some cases.

That's why ASSULT AND BATTERY is a CRIMMINAL offense!


But hey, no harm no foul, right?

The scores of battered spouses and children should just shut up, suck it up, and stop whinning, right?

Scalia said that determining when physical coercion could come into play was a difficult question.

Not a difficult question at all. The answer is: NEVER!


In law, there is the concept of "Precedence"; Decisions are informed, and sometimes wholly based, upon prior decisions and/or actions, having thus established precedence for all decisions and actions to follow.

Once we allow the use of "physical coercion" of any kind to be established as a legitimate device of juris prudence, once the validity of torture has been set, the presedence for the use of such methods will have become established. On this basis, citing established precedence, the employment of such methods will likely expand and intensify.

I believe the term used to describe this is "Judicial Creep".

Note how the powers granted under the Patriot Act, ostensibly formed to combat terrorism, have been employed against an array of non-terrorist activities.

U.S. interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, have been the subject of growing debate in the United States,...

Scalia, visiting London during a break in the court's calendar, referred generally to those methods as "so-called torture," ...

"I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture," he said in the interview. "Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited by the Constitution?"

To blithely catagorize such techniques as "so-called torture" opens the legal door to other, more brutal methods, even those that would, undoubtably, lead to permanent injury and/or disfigurement;

the State would merely have to rationalize that the brutal and permantent "Ends" in this (and every subsequent instance) justified the means.

"Is it obvious, that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to the society? I think it's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth."

What Should be obvious to the Chief Justice is that what is most crucial to any society Are the Standards to which the Society Holds Itself Accountable.



To Torture, Even if in the Service of Life, is to Surrender to Brutality.
The Society That Surrenders to Brutality Forfeits Its Existence as a Society.

No suprise here.

Literally ALL of the Supreme court judges are Bush's cronies and stooges. We already know the Decider's stance on this. They will all just puppet their buddy and go along for the ride like good little boys. That's why he hand-picked them to begin with. Complete unaccountability. Labeling these people "justices" is the epitome of irony IMHO.

For me, this issue is a tough one to "pick a side" of. In fact, I'm not so sure this is much of a yes or no, black or white issue. As previously mentioned, the first problem is defining torture. In my opinion, intentionally causing any amount of physical pain, emotional or mental trauma, or instilling the fear of death, disfigurement, etc., in any degree, is torture. Any harmful actions against the detained, which would cease upon compliance by the detainee, would be considered torture.

Obviously, at least for me, it's pretty clear what constitutes torture. However, what is not clear, is whether or not these actions are warranted. I do believe there are scenarios where any means necessary are justified, but I don't think the U.S. has ever been confronted with any of those scenarios. Granted, this is my opinion, and someone with a slightly less jaded view of our establishment may not agree, but I'm more inclined to think these measures have been employed in the recent past not to protect the populace, but perhaps to obtain forced confessions, false statements, etc., all to pull someone else's arse out of the fire.

Even in a legitimate, justifiable scenario, torture has proven to be less than effective in producing accurate information. Tortured persons are likely to simply spill any beans they're asked to to make the torture stop.

In any event, I think a mandate is in order, which would require anyone who declares Waterboarding is not torture, endure the process themselves.

"I'm not sure it's actually 'torture'".

"Ok, simple enough, lets get you all set up. You'll be sure in a few minutes... one way or another."