It’s extraordinary enough that a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice would express any view on such a timely legal issue as torture, more so because of what Justice Antonin Scalia told the BBC about what he called “so-called†torture — that it’s unconstitutional only as punishment, not as an interrogation tool.
“Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?†Scalia asked.
“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?â€
As a letter writer wonders in today’s Reader Views: “If it is OK to torture for the sake of obtaining information, how long will it be before the local police begin using this tool?â€
112 Comments
We are indeed entering a different phase of America. Cops are doing it now, tasering at will for any “non-compliance”. I could fill this blog up with links to videos of police beating people, smacking little kids, dumping quadriplegics out of their wheelchairs and women being stripped searched by male sheriff’s officers. It goes on and on (I dare you to ask me to show proof). It is now policy to intimidate us, to feel scared around these cops. Gone are the days of Andy Griffith and asking a cop in for a slice of pie. Now they dress up like Darth Vader and beat everyone para-militarily-like. When mayors are calling the citizenry “civilians”, we are in trouble. I can’t even let me kids believe that they can go to a police officer for anything because they’re taking kids away from parents at will throughout the US. But we all wanted to be safe from “terrorists” and now we will be. USAPatriot Act=Enabling Act and thus we are becoming 1933 Germany. I’m sure lots of folks laughed about it back then as well. This time it’ll be much worse, but for the sake of protecting us, us dumb asses will gladly watch it all happen. Until it is you they have come for. Try reading “The Gulag Archipelago” for a few laughs.
Those who are never taught real history (thanks public schools)or refuse to understand it and take a 30 second sound-bite as a history lesson will make everyone else repeat it.
Scalia belongs in the mafia as a leg breaker.
As a really conservative Catholic, maybe Scalia is just hoping for a return of those good old days of Torquemada, when the Church really put the screws to the Jews to nail those bogus “converts”.
Smack the dog squeeze out of those terrorists!
If you know who the terrorists are and if you believe it’s just a “smack”. Inquisition 2008.
And on another thread some wonder about a person questioning pride in America.
I am ashamed and embarrassed! This man who is a member of the highest court joins bushco in the rush to bring America down to the level of terrorists.
The best way to expose tyrants is to let them act like tyrants.
Pleef thats fine unless your on the receiving end of that very tyranny. Did you see the vid of the women who got the shit beat out of her at the same jail where the quad was beat?
The sad thing, theirs more than one video of cops beating up a wheelchair bound person
Yeah, I’ve got a file just for video’s of that stuff.
But she just fell down.
How about the CIA plane that crashed in Mexico filled with 5 tons of Coke?
Just to lighten things up…
The same plane that delivers people to Guantanamo?
I love your book, “The Age of Reason” sir.
I posted a little deal on the plane yesterday, but no one mentioned it on the this thing. Thanks for being an aware person Tom.
Why thank you very much
I refuse to believe that a majority of police officers are brutal and corrupt. There are certainly and unfortunately exceptions.
Our real problem is the Supreme Court. The worst of the judiciary ARE in the majority there. I can envision myself having a happy dream where Ebola fever took away Scalia, Roberts and Thomas on January 20th, 2009.
Skeptic, you can refuse all you want, but this place we are going as a nation is about to scare the hell out of us. They hire low IQ people do become police officers now. The dumber you are, the fewer questions you ask.
Robert Jordan sued the New Haven, Conn., police department after it rejected him as a police officer because he scored too high on an intelligence test. But U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey has dismissed Jordan’s suit, ruling that he “may have been disqualified unwisely, but he was not denied equal protection” as defined by law. Jordan’s IQ is approximately 125, versus a national average police officer IQ of 104. New Haven argued that a too-smart cop “could soon get bored with police work and quit after undergoing costly academy training.”(AP)
Just look please.
Scalia needs to read the Constitution once in awhile to remind himself what the 8th Amendment says. I suppose Scalia beats his children but says, “I’m not punishing them, I’m simply interrogating them.”
And I wonder how he figured that torture isn’t cruel. Isn’t that the entire purpose of torture, to be as cruel and painful as possible? Perhaps he’s been watching Monty Python and figures the people at Guantanamo are being put in comfortable chairs and hit with soft cushions.
Scalia’s behavior should be investigated to see whether or not he can face impeachment charges.
As usual, people confuse what is constitutional with what is just or moral. That is the difficult part of dealing with the judiciary.
It’s up to the legislative process to put rules in place. It is not up to the Supreme Court (or any court) to re-interpret laws/rules/U.S. Constitution to get a desired outcome.
It appears that Mr. Jordan was the victim of discrimination, but not discrimination that the court found unlawful. Any time a choice is made between two things, or among three or more, there is discrimination; the question then becomes whether such discrimination is unlawful.
BTW, an interesting argument by the City of New Haven in support of its policy.
Pleef, in the small town I live in, a high percentage of the police/sheriff are those picked on as kids.
Never understood the mentality of 6 200 pound jocks throwing a 120 pound computer geek off lockers to prove how manly they were.
I’m sure there’re some on these boards who can illuminate me.
Linda
This is “Constitutional Law”
You need to get past the idea of thinking that what YOU like is Constitutional, and what you don’t like is not Constitutional.
It is VERY clear what can be done in a Criminal case.
We can not convict someone based on testimony which is obtained illegally.
However, if a terrorist plants a bomb, and we wish to know where that bomb is, we CAN torture that terrorist, without any Constitutional problems at all.
Good Heavens, we can have a war and drop bombs on people, knowing that some innocent folks will, sadly, get hurt. Nobody claims that this is “unconsitutional” — However, when we have a terrorist that knows the location of a bomb that will kill innocent people, you liberals want to claim that there is some law against forcing this guy to talk?
The one thing that I always do here in this thing and everywhere is implore my fellow countrymen to look beyond the left/right paradigm. And everyday I end up talking to myself. I feel like a Beatles song, “The Fool on the Hill”. I find solace that there are, everyday, people waking up. But I still feel like bawling my eyes out over what is happening and that there are people that either don’t care or don’t want to know. The people that still find comfort in “stuff” will be the ones that scream and cry loudest when the veil is lifted from their eyes but by then it’ll be too late. BTW gold is up to $953 today. There is still a bit of hope, people could vote for Ron Paul, he’s voted each and every one of these measures down. As long as folks still buy into the “nut” stigma about him and don’t face reality we won’t change a damned thing, no matter what pretty words come out of Hillary Mc Bama’s mouth.
Oh well.
Pleefer
Never in history has the Supreme Court, or any President of the United States, said that we can not use exreme measures in order to save lives.
This is nothing new.
The idea that Scalia is, somehow “wrong” is the only recent or “new” idea expressed on this thread.
Historically and legally, Scalia is absolutely correct.
Information obtained through torture would be “fruid of the poisoned tree” and could not be used.
The location of a nuclear bomb set to blow up NCY?
Would it be “Unconstitutional” to find and disarm that bomb, after someone shot the terrorist in the knees to get that location out of him?
Information, of course, could not be used in a court of law.
Information obtained to save lives, COULD be used.
I care less what a Supreme Court justice or a President has “said” about the use. I go by the Constitution. We created the Constitution and a new country to rid ourselves and our posterity of the Crown’s evil deeds. You open this can of worms and we’ll feel it. This precedent is not one to be set. Hell, if you’re pulling my fingernails out, I’ll tell you the Moon is made of cheese, if that’s what you want to hear. If you have proof that this guy you are questioning actually knows where a bomb is then I guess we do what we have to do… I just know it will be for anyone who “could be” or “might know” a terrorist. It’s too vague for my mentality.
Pleefer
The “can of worms” has been opened since the Garden of Eden.
There will always be evil in the world.
Law enforcement deals with what we can do, in a criminal sense.
The Constitution, rightly, controls evidence, witnesses, right to counsel, the right to confront your accuser, etc.
The Constitution does NOT say that we have to give those same protections to violent enemies of the United States.
In fact, the Constitution says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
Habeus Corpus, for instance, can be suspended in an emergency.
What you like and dislike? Your right to make your opinions known, of course.
What is legal and illegal, Constitutional and UnConstitutional?
Personal feelings don’t count!
Pleefer,
People mock that which they don’t understand. It scares them, they don’t know what to do. It takes just one individual, scared as they are to say “Look, it is stupid.” Point and laugh. Then all the other frightened people who are too scared to look and think, find solace with the fool’s statement. Then they too point and laugh.
What is shameful is that these are so called politically informed adults. Yet they fail to see the path their chosen party leads them down. They keep the party blinders on and follow what the talking heads tell them to do. Just look at Econ for an example. He keeps promoting torture and bends over backwards to try and justify his stance. Pathetic.
It is the lonely few that have a front row vantage point to the demise of this once great nation. We will feel the greatest pain as the herds have much time to be blissfully ignorant and will only flinchingly open their eyes at the last moments.
I want to be free and in order for that to be, they have to want to be free too. That’s the damnable dichotomy we have here.
I have folks tell me I’m crazy for putting this stuff out here. But I argue that that is my point. Someone said, “when you are scared of your government, you have tyranny, when your government is scared of you, that is freedom”.
We have Bush 41 and Bush 43 to thank for giving us people like Scalia in very high places. Torture is torture wheather it is used for information or punishment is still illegal, unconstitutional and immoral! ! ! ! ! ! !
The Japanese waterboarded Americans and we executed them for it. The Japanese could have used the excuse that they had an idea that the Americans were going to set off a couple of nukes in their country therefore it was justified. The courts executed them anyway.
Nutjobs said Saddam had WMD so we could have tortured him until he revealed their location. Problem is there weren’t any but when you start with the assumption that there must be WMD then you’ve justified your atrocity. That’s why pro-torture people always have to reference a work of fiction (they probably believe 24 is a documentary, just like Harry Potter).
Time and time again conservatives have proven they are incapable of good judgment and lack morals so it’s best to let the grown ups make the decisions, not ammoral Christians like Scalia.
Pro-torture Paul:
“The Constitution does NOT say that we have to give those same protections to violent enemies of the United States.”
What the 8th Amendment says:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Hey, it doesn’t say we can’t torture children or the elderly either. Or for that matter it doesn’t say we can’t torture bloggers or people with or without hair. Sorry anti-American Paul, it’s a general statement which applies to everyone. However you have proven your ignorance of everything time and time again so I shan’t go further in trying to cure your stupid.
Let’s let the IRS start using water boarding. How about it Econ? Think you can remember where that 2001 receipt went after a few hours of water boarding. Why not? It isn’t like it is punishment, it is interrogation.
I’m saying it isn’t “liberal” or “conservative” because when Obama or Clinton OK it (which they will), all of those followers will all of a sudden think it is just and right.
While I believe Justice Scalia should not have made his remarks reported by the BBC, I’m going to take the “parsing” approach to the same.
First, looking at the language of the Eighth Amendment and the construction thereof, I would conclude that he is correct in his assertion that the use of same in the environment he describes is not violative of said amendment.
Second, he carefully avoids the obvious issue of the general lawfulness of torture, which is proscribed by various treaties which have been ratified by the Congress and thus become a part of the law of the United States (see second paragraph, Article VI, Constitution of the United States), as well as by statutes of the United States.
Thus, it is my opinion that he is correct that torture, outside of its use in a criminal case, does not violate the Eighth Amendment. It is my further opinion that the same may be unlawful for the reasons above given even if not “unconstitutional”. Again, he does not directly address the second part of my conclusion in his remarks as reported by the BBC.
So its ok to torture a perp if its to find out info, where a body is buried a kidnapped victim locked up at? Could we torture a crimanals family if he was hiding to find his location?
How about a guy who is accused of robbing a Quiktrip? Torture him to find out where he hid the money and torture him on where the gun is stashed. According to Scalia and the pro-torture crowd we can use torture on everyone for whatever crimes the government wants to accuse a person of.
No, Tom Paine, it is not. Again, not necessarily because of the Eighth Amendment “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition, but on grounds arising, e.g., from the “voluntariness of confessions” under the Fifth Amendment, etc. You are directing your comments, it appears to me, to citizens or residents of the U.S. in the custody of law enforcement within the U.S.
In my prior post, I was parsing the remarks of Justice Scalia as to his apparent rejection of the thought that use of torture in a “terrorist” situation (from his remarks) violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment”. Again, from a reading of the BBC article linked in the lead post, he carefully avoids the question of lawfulness of the use of such methods.
According to the Bush administration anyone who is opposed to warantless wiretaps aids terrorism and is therefore a terrorist. Thus Bush’s support for the FISA bill which prohibits lawsuits against telecom companies that spied on Americans on the behest of the Bush regime.
Since that means pretty much all Americans who respect the Constitution (neo-cons clearly don’t) are terrorists and therefore can be tortured according to Scalia.
If the government can torture anyone, the government will torture anyone.
There are many that will parse where they may, but damn others for it. In my opinion, small that it is, torture may be immoral, it may be illegal, but it is not stictly unconstitutional. I have to agree with Vaughn Toll.
Again, gentlemen, the issue presented by Justice Scalia in his remarks was whether the use of torture violated the Eighth Amendment. He should never, IMO, have made these remarks. Please note he never directly addresses the lawfulness thereof, just the Eighth Amendment application to the subject.
I often find myself in disagreement with Justice Scalia’s opinions. However, I felt it appropriate to parse his remarks to determine what he said.
I personally would prefer that SCOTUS judges just keep their mouths shut after being seated.
However, if a terrorist plants a bomb, and we wish to know where that bomb is…
I have trouble understanding if you don’t know where the bomb is, how do you know it was planted?
What are you implying ghoti? hmmm…
I think econ planted a bomb in the pentagon, maybe NSA should find where it is?
ghoti,
That is exactly how it will work. Neighbors against neighbors. Workers against bosses… on and on.
That’s how it is ALREADY working, and those pushing that agenda want it to increase.
If anyone has a personal vendetta against anyone all it will take is an anonymous phone call.
those that don’t see this are the REAL UnAmerican’s. And I don’t use that term lightly. that term is thrown around like Goering. Here’s a quote by him:
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”….
And one by Ashcroft:
“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.”…
I’M FREAKING OUT! I lose sleep over this stuff and I’m a nobody. I can’t imagine being the people that actually do the things that we are talking about. But they, more than likely, enjoy it.
If you are going to plant a nuclear bomb in say - Wichita, KS - and you are captured and tortured, will you give up the location?
Come on, this isn’t “24,” The perp could say, I meant Wichita Falls, TX - or Fall River, WI or whatever.
The torture would stop, the search would commence and Wichita, Kansas would go up in a mushroom cloud.
Do you REALLY think that if someone was a evil as to plant a nuke to go off at a future moment, they would give a damn about lying to stop the torture?
It reminds me of the witchhunts of Salem. It’s fine until the wife of the governor gets accused.
I don’t fear nukes, especially in Wichita, especially under this regime. All the paranoid fear-mongers (the whole world is out to get me–just like any ten-penny tyrant of any 3rd world country) will have neutrino detector or somewhat out in force.
But I might be keeping an eye on large fertilizer purchases. Or even massive quantities of ammonia and iodine.
All I can say is that if you need to invest in paper stocks, invest in prisons.
Doug
A Bomb or waterboarding?
Japan waterboarded our prisoners.
We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.
We were justified in doing so.
But, which is worse?
Surely, if waterboarding could prevent an atomic bomb, it WOULD be justified.
You who are against “torture” in all cases, are the true moral cowards.
You are not willing to test your feel good theory in a real situation, even a hypothetical situation.
And, again, torture in battle is not mentioned in the Constitution.
It is, therefore, NOT unconstitutional.
You might not like it, but that is a different matter.
(I dont like it either, by the way, but there are lots of necessary evils in the world)
Doug
“Doug
Posted February 21, 2008 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
Pro-torture Paul:
“The Constitution does NOT say that we have to give those same protections to violent enemies of the United States.”
What the 8th Amendment says:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
—–
Since when is the purpose of holding even a POW considered “punishment”???
War and Criminal Law are two different things.
Scalia is right. If we use very aggressive tecniques, in order to save lives or protect this country, and it is not done for propaganda “confessions” as the Commnunists have done, and it is not done for criminal evidence, but is done to save and protect lives, it is NOT against the Constitution.
It just isn’t.
It is NOT punishment, so it is not prohibited by the Constitution.
Econ, depending upon the methods used and the status of the interrogators and the subject, even though it may not be unconstitutional, it may be unlawful. As I’ve posted before, Justice Scalia adroitly avoided any discussion of this in the interview, as reported.
VT
Agreed, of course.
However, a few points on your “treaty” issues.
Yes, a “Treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land” as it has been said.
However, a terrorist is much like a pirate, in other times.
Those who have no state sponsorship, do not report to a chain of command or official military, — what treaty covers such a person?
Even Geneva Conventions spell out who is, and who is not covered.
Agreed, Econ; it is all a matter of definition as set out in the various treaties ratified and statutes passed and signed into law with reference to a “terrorist” who is not a state actor. There are some issues, would you not agree, with an alleged “terrorist” who is also a citizen of the United States which are in addition to those generally discussed within this thread.
“a terrorist is much like a pirate, in other times”
But, if we pick up an Iraqi citizen in Iraq what makes him a terrorist?
VT
A US Citizen has constitutional protection as far as criminal process is concerned.
If aggressive methods are used, to find a bomb or a hostage, his “confession” could not be used in court.
As far as Iraqi citizens are concerned, Ben, I am not aware that such are being held at Gitmo, but we are not at war with the current government of Iraq.
Not sure what the legal status of an Iraqi citizen, held by the United States, would be.
Yep, Econ, and the U.S. citizen would most likely have a 1983 action against the government.
VT
Hope it would never come to that, but as Lincold did, I would think a very dangerous person, who happened to be a US Citizen, could prompt a President to suspend Habeas Corpus. A perfectly legal option in time of real danger.
Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, suspended Habeas Corpus also, for a time.
“Those who have no state sponsorship, do not report to a chain of command or official military, — what treaty covers such a person?”
Rational people in the 21st century refer to so defined folks above as “criminals”, not pirates. Geesshhh…
Econ, it is interesting to note that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 9, second paragraph places the right to suspend the “Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus…when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it[.]“, within the limitations on legislation. In other words, it is the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch, that has the power to suspend. I’ve always found that of interest.
In ex parte Merryman, SCOTUS found the action taken by President Lincoln in suspending habeas corpus to be unconstitutional, declaring that an act of Congress was necessary, citing the above provision of the Constitution. As we all know, this ruling was ignored.
Pall,
The Constitution is like any other written word. If you parse it enough on a particular bias, you can claim it says anything you want it to. For example, I can quote you chapter and verse where the bible promotes getting sh*t-faced and boinking your children. That of course is not the spirit of the bible, any more than torture is the spirit of the Constitution.
Torture ends up being similar to the old church test for witchcraft, where they throw the suspect into the water, and if she floats, she’s guilty and burned, and if she sinks and drowns, she’s innocent, but dead either way. There is really no foolproof way of knowing if someone has information you don’t.
We can call terrorists enemby combatant, waterborad them (which, of course, Paul does not consider torture) and then try them under military tribunals. Isn’t there a problem with obtaining information from these terrorists via torture? The problem most notably is getting them to the punishment phase. Is there anyone more deserving of capital punishment than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? I do predict that the Bush administration has sh.t in its messkit on that one. Good luck getting that done. Heck of a job! Bushie!
“In ex parte Merryman,…”
For what it is worth, you already know, Congress was not in session when Lincoln suspended.
The Confederate Congress fought this out for 10 days before allowing a 30 day suspension.
That SF Chronicle article I posted up above proves they are ready and willing to suspend Habeas Corpus AND Posse Comitatus. It’s coming here wether or not you believe it. And you ought to hope they find no reason to ask you any questions.
Are you really ready for this stuff or just toeing the line?
First they came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
–Pastor Martin Niemöller
whether even.
fleettwood, I am aware that Congress was not in session. That did not deter SCOTUS in its ruling. Again, I have always found this interesting.
VT -
I’ve not read the full article on Scalia’s comments. However, I fully agree with you on the distinction between “unconstitutional” and “unlawful.” They are not the same. the Constitution does not require good laws. And a ‘bad’ law; one which sets bad policy, may well be constitutional. I also understand that this is a distinction that most of the lay public either doesn’t understand or refuses to recognize. Much of the public cannot separate “constitutional” from “what I think the law should be;” they truly believe their policy preferences are, or should be, the basis of constitutionality.
Eighth amendment jurisprudence is a mess anyway, under the amorphous and meaningless “changing standards of an evolving society” we have attached to the Eighth amendment. Read Simmons (I think that’s the case, and especially Scalia’s dissent, where he tears Ginsburg a new one) and get your blood boiling! This is exactly what constitutional jurisprudence should NOT be!
“It’s coming here wether or not you believe it.”
No. It isn’t. It’s just the usual fear mongering of the Left.
No wonder you people can’t be believed on Global Warming. It’s chicken little all over the place.
GMC, I’ll put that on my reading list. Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is a mess; if I may be allowed, a “royal mess”.
Pleefer -
I’ve read the article.
I’ve also read NSD-51.
I’d suggest that you carefully peel the tinfoil back from your skull.
“That did not deter SCOTUS in its ruling. Again, I have always found this interesting.”
Me too, but, he had to do something. Baltimore and other cities close by were a mess. DC was a target. DC was surrounded by the “enemy”.
I wasn’t aware a ruling had been made.
Did it take forever, like nowdays?
fleettwood, it has been a very long time since I read ex parte Merryman in law school. If memory serves, and we all have experience with memory not always being entirely accurate, it did not take long, as the habeas writ had been issued by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. It seems to me, and again this could be grafting something into the decision from another source, that it was suggested Congress might have been able to meet in another place, other than the district.
I know that this country was created to ensure that we wouldn’t use cruel and unusual punishment. Now you can “parse” the Constitution all you want. I can call a loaf of bread baked dough and water and we’d all know what it is. We are essentially punishing the torturee for not giving information that we believe he has. And it’s just that, a belief. Sure we don’t know what intelligence was gathered in order to ascertain that this torturee knew anything about a bomb or otherwise. But this new surreal “war” that we’re in right now doesn’t lend any credence at all that we have an honest and open government any longer. Every indicator says that any intelligence that we have on anyone for anything is flawed and not always to be taken as fact.
But I’m no lawyer, trained to get an answer and outcome that I want. I just figure the Constitution is pretty simple to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
I do love this stuff!
GMC70 person,
You can smart ass me all day long, but it doesn’t change a damned thing. BTW, it’s NSPD-51.
As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure “bubbleroom” in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.
He got his answer: “DENIED”.
So much for COG (it seems it’ll be a continuity of executive power).
I guess if that vague disaster were to happen, we could rest easy knowing that Bush would remain in charge until he felt like not being in charge.
***tightening my tin-foil***
Hell, we wouldn’t even have to get out in the cold and stand in line to vote this November (or whenever).
That’d save me some time to fashion another hat once this one is torn.
Gotta wonder about these Christian conservatives like Paul. They love torture and murder and hate America. How are they any different than Islamic terrorists? Oh right, one says Praise Allah and the other says Praise God before they commit their atrocities. Whatever gets them up to their fictional heaven I suppose.
I don’t think the phone companies that cooperated with bush’s wiretapping and providing info. should be given immunity. However, the U.S. govt. should indemnify them for all expenses incurred as a result of their cooperation.
“Thou shalt not kill” is very explicit. But if you parse it, it doesn’t exclude jump starting someone’s nut sack.
““Thou shalt not kill” is very explicit.”..
It is not at all “explicit”. It’s a common mistake. Properly translated it’s “Thou shall not commit murder”. The body count in the Bible is, like, a million. They had no problem with killing.
Pleefer there is the entire “Do unto others…” and “love your neighbor…” sort of thing. However that stuff is in the hippy part of the Bible which fundies tend to skip over in favor of the parts that let’s them kill gays and rape girls.
Ah yes Fleety, it’s only killing when someone can justify the murder. We might give it other names like “collateral damage” or “execution” or “manslaughter” but the end is just the same as murder. Nobody gets to ask the victim what he or she thinks which is quite convenient for the murderer, oops, killer.
Pfeefer, being authorized to read secret documents is not the same as having access to secret documents. I had a Top Secret clearance, however, I couldn’t go to another base and read their documents without getting approval and signed off by several people.
Then, there is the need to know. I had no need to know what went on behind the gates where they kept the nukes - it wasn’t my job or in my purview.
Fleett — If I may point out one item… The Confederacy was NOT operating under The Constitution of the Union… So, I am not sure what Mr. Davis’ actions have to do with Scalia’s opinion here??
“however, I couldn’t go to another base and read their documents without getting approval and signed off by several people.”
______________________________
So, there was a specified PROCESS you had to follow to get to the documents you wanted to read… THAT is the very thing (process) Bush has decided to do an end run on… He can use FISA, and he will get his permissions… And he doesnt even have to have FISA permission before he (and agents) act… WHY is that not acceptable for BUSH???
Reguliar,
He is part of the three branches that is supposed to be continued in that COG thing and on the committee for the purpose of Der Homeland Security, so you’d think he would be a little higher up on the food chain than yes, even you. But I suppose if the tyrant-hopeful doesn’t think it necessary for the other branches like those lesser folks in Congress to know what’s going on, then that is his prerogative as a said hopeful dictator or tyrant. All he needs is a “justification” (I’m sure that is in the works). And as has been said by Chertoff, it’s not a matter of if, but when. Sad to say that I can’t say much, I voted for him twice and his father twice as well.
I’m just a spectator in all of this. The world is spinning so fast now that when it stops we’ll have a whole new country.
Man, I hope the Maya are right about December 2012…heh.
BTW, why do you insist on the P (f) eefer? Are you taking a stab at an already stupid name? Just axing.
Good night; Good luck; and
God Bless; whatever you conceive
God to be!
Blessings All!!
I dont “love” torture.
It is horrible and should be used rarely, and only when innocent life hangs in the balance.
I do insist that the laws which apply to domestic criminals can not, in all cases, be applied in war time or against terrorists who wish to kill us off, as a country.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact”
Hillary thinks a “ticking bomb” exception should be written into the law.
McCain thinks, should a case demand harsh treatment, with the goal of saving lives, that a Presidential Pardon would be the answer, not a specific exception in the law.
The Constitution does NOT ban torture of the enemy.
Various treaties do. However, a treaty does not “bind the whole world” — only the countries who sign it, and the subjects or citizens of those countries.
For somebody who doesnt “love” torture, you sure work really hard trying to convince the world that torture is an OK thing!! LOL
Reds like a huge oxymoron…
I dont love torture, you say, BUT, we gotta use it anyway!! As if there isnt any other solution???
You been watching too many Jack Bauer re-runs!! LOL
This is the same Antonin Scalia who has argued, incredibly, the “cruel and usual” should be read in the disjunctive, i.e., it can be cruel it’s not unusual, and it can be unusual it’s not cruel!
Translation: So long as the cruelty is widespread, it’s cool.
This man clearly has no business serving in any office of honor, trust of profit, let alone on the nation’s highest court. His weird, unsupported views on unilateral Executive power alone show that he’s a nut.
On rare occasions, he shows lucidity, (e.g., his majority opinion in the Keello? case (infrared search), his all-too-sensible dissent in NTEU v. Von Raab). Must be moon phases or something. But most of the time, the man merely howls at the moon–and we pay the price.
P.S. I think the fools who think torture is okay must imagine real life really is “24″, where we always know who the bad guys are, and what they’ve done or about to do (obviously: we just saw them talking about in the previous scene!).
Reality is messier: Sometimes the “person with information” is just a person with information. Or with no information. Or the wrong information, or information about the wrong thing. Sometimes they’re just someone who’s there due to being fingered by someone else for less-than-noble reasons.
One less-than-noble reason: To save yourself </i? from torture. And as we saw during the McCarthy era, it doesn’t even require physical torture. All you need is persecution without due process.
Leaving morality aside (obviously), it requires a skull of granite to believe that torture is reliable enough to ever justify its usage. And we can’t complain when it’s done to our people–turnabout is fair play, folks. Think about that.
First, he never explicitly said torture was ok.
He very clearly said that some level of pain infliction is ok, so where is the line?
Leave it up to the liberals to cry about nothing.
Do you liberals support any interrogation techniques at all on terrorists?
I wonder.
You dumb asses that approve of these techniques are also the ones who profess faith in God. Give me a break. You can’t have both.
Tough guys.
Chas
So, you will not allow me to be “pro-choice” on torture?
Do you “enjoy” abortion?
Do you enjoy the fact that a “3rd Timester” fetus feels pain?
I disagree with you “pro-choicers” on the subject of abortion. However, I do not assign motives to you, or claim that you enjoy that horrible practice.
Please try to show the same respect for my views.
Paul, once again having your hypocrisy and immorality exposed you try to change the subject. Face it, you love murder and torture. Is it because you have some secret S&M fantasies or do you just really want to hurt as many people as possible because you derive some sick pleasure from other people’s torment? Another Christian showing the fruits of his religion.
As they are Republican in name only, so are they Christian as well. As I won’t judge anyone, I cannot say that someone isn’t trying to be Christian. I’m saying that from what I’ve been taught as a child, these are opposite of the teachings of Yahushua. I left the churches and God-Marts long ago for these very reasons. The same people who claimed piety every Sunday and come Monday, started again whatever sins they knew could be “washed away” the next Sunday. Even Yahushua wouldn’t understand “Christianity” at its purest form, let alone this disaster they call “worship” now. He was a practicing Jew after all. But that’s my opinion and I’ll know sooner or later if I was correct.
Doug
How did I “change the issue” ???
I am saying that I am “pro choice” on torture.
What? Do you think it is impossible to be “personally opposed” to something, yet leave open the possibility that it might, sometimes, be necessary?
Paul, you think torture is necessary as a means of entertainment. Why do you take such delight at the possibility of people being tortured? On this thread you are Christians advocating murder and torture. What a sick religion you belong to.
4 Trackbacks
Garden Lover…
And how is it working for you, it has been some time between now and this post, i was just wondering if you are happy with it….
Jack…
Geat post. I added you to my blog roll!…
Police Training Videos…
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject….
heather mills photos…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..