Posted on 12/13/2014 12:26:39 PM PST by shove_it
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is joining the debate over the Senate's torture report by saying it's hard to rule out the use of extreme measures to extract information if millions of lives were threatened. Scalia told a Swiss broadcast network that American and European liberals who say such tactics may never be used are being self-righteous.
The 78-year-old justice said he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb. Scalia has made similar comments in the past, but he renewed his remarks on Wednesday in an interview with Radio Television Suisse, a day after the release of the Senate report detailing the CIA's harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists. RTS aired the interview on Friday.
"Listen, I think it's very facile for people to say, 'Oh, torture is terrible.' You posit the situation where a person that you know for sure knows the location of a nuclear bomb that has been planted in Los Angeles and will kill millions of people. You think it's an easy question? You think it's clear that you cannot use extreme measures to get that information out of that person?" Scalia said...
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
The lefties have ‘Gruberized’ the Constitution too. They’ve given us a new adverb to use on them.
“why would the politicians say that we don’t torture?”
Because they are following the UN charter against torture.
That's entirely my point.
Too much is lost when you stand still when injustice is done to others
, especially when you're talking of a government that holds you in so ill regard.
In matters of liberty, and morality, it is far better to err on the side of caution than to allow it for expedience's sake… especially for espedience's sake: that is often the method by which liberty is lost: because we need to do morally-/legally-ambiguous-or-prohibited X, now. (No time to read the bill, we need to pass it now. No time to make the law constitutional, we've got to justify this [no-knock warrants, speech-laws, etc] now.)
Correction: verb, not adverb.
Then why not claim that?
They do cite “international” law when bashing torture.
>> Isn’t that what makes it torture?
>
> Is it torture if after having experienced it, you can stand up, cough and blow you nose, then walk away normally? I’d say it’s intense hazing.
This is one of the better arguments; however, I think it has one weakness: if it’s not “cruel and unusual”, then why don’t we use it against criminals? I’m sure that there’s lots of info that could be garnered by applying this in The War on Drugs.
I believe that the Constitution only applies to (or was only intended to) protections for US citizens.
The Constitution says very little about how wars should be fought.
We are engaged in a War On Drugs, a War on Poverty and various other so-called domestic war misnomers. We have failed to name this War on Islamic Terrorism accurately, as it orders of magnitude above the examples of ‘war’ cited above. Ask any Frogman if waterboarding is torture, it’s part or their routine Seal training.
And the method thereof was to limit the government.
And if the restriction on the government is somehow conditional then isn't it reasonable to assume that the government will do everything it can to throw off those restrictions?
The Constitution says very little about how wars should be fought.
True — that's probably a good thing.
Though IIUC it was the politicians meddling in War that cost us both the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
That applies to citizens of the United States for crimes committed against society under Amendment VIII
The individuals held in Guantanamo who were captured on the field of battle are not subject to the protection of our own VIII Amendment........
That's the major topic of discussion since all the libtards want these bastards transferred to the United States then supported by court appointed attorneys and tried under the laws that don't really apply to them.
Yes, but of course you miss the part where the constitution says that you can’t kill (or punish) people with due process. That’s rather hard to account for during a war now isn’t it?
No, the constitution limits what the government does to its citizens. That’s it. We’ve extended that to legal residents as well. That’s fine, but you cannot do such things as spying or war without ignoring those limitations, and you are going to be sharkbait without the ability to do either. The claim about yanking citizenship requires due process (unless the act is flagrantly illegal).
The world is not a nice place. This is where libertarians fall down in their normally rational world view (not implying you are libertarian, but this position of yours is). They seem to think that our own government is more of a threat than any other government. That’s myopic. Even if we assume our own government is a bunch of tyrannical oppressors, there’s no reason to assume the other governments are not as well, and the local oppressors have a vested interest in at least some measure of well being of their oppressed as they need them. Other governments have no such interest.
Yes. I am. Punishment is about something you have done and you are being punished for an act.
Definition of INTERROGATE
transitive verb
: to question formally and systematically
Interrogation is being questioned. You know there's a difference or you would have included it's definition in your post.
Apples and oranges. Take your liberal bleeding heart elsewhere.
All of which have zero Constitutional justification.
In fact, the War on Drugs in particular has been instrumental in eroding the Bill of Rights; in fact here's a little list from an older post:
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed. So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?
We have failed to name this War on Islamic Terrorism accurately, as it orders of magnitude above the examples of ‘war’ cited above. Ask any Frogman if waterboarding is torture, it’s part or their routine Seal training.
I'd agree that the War on Terror is stupidly named — the truly terrible truth is that these War on [Idea] are deliberately on ideas so that they cannot be won, and they are used to subvert the constraints of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Don't like no-knock searches? Then you're against the War on Drugs and therefore morally evil! (That's essentially the same emotional-response you'll get when you bring up the right to bear arms for ex-felons, you know: those who have served their sentence.)
I totally agree with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. When it might come to thousands be killed by an insane individual I would kick the shi! out of him to find out how. Enough!
Full declaration of war is the process for declaring war — this undeclared war policing action
crap that we've got our armed forces isn't.
No, the constitution limits what the government does to its citizens. That’s it. We’ve extended that to legal residents as well. That’s fine,
So then the guarantees of the sixth amendment don't extend to, say, a foreign tourist even though it says In all criminal prosecutions
?
but you cannot do such things as spying or war without ignoring those limitations,
Hm, looks like the NSA has ignored these limitations, even if you claim them to only apply to citizens.
The claim about yanking citizenship requires due process (unless the act is flagrantly illegal).
Ah, yes — we know the government would never deem something to be illegal, or flagrantly illegal.
Just like they would never twist bureaucratic discretion
based on politics.
And we should all rest assured that the numerous laws referring to bureaucratic rules will never be turned against us.
I think even recent history shows the folly of thinking like that.
The world is not a nice place.
I never said it was.
But is the existence of evil a valid excuse to be evil?
Is the existence of injustice a valid excuse not to act Justly?
Is the existence of lawbreakers justification for breaking the law in order to bring them to justice
?
If you are a Christian, then I think to answer affirmative to any of these is to call Jesus a fool and deny the authority of his instructions on the Sermon on the Mount.
This is where libertarians fall down in their normally rational world view (not implying you are libertarian, but this position of yours is).
Doesn't that suggest that the rationalization
and excusing of actions here could be irrational?
They seem to think that our own government is more of a threat than any other government. That’s myopic.
That's actually very insightful: in the past two centuries far, far more have been killed by their own governments than by war and terrorism.
Even if we assume our own government is a bunch of tyrannical oppressors, there’s no reason to assume the other governments are not as well, and the local oppressors have a vested interest in at least some measure of well being of their oppressed as they need them. Other governments have no such interest.
Er, this sounds like Stockholm Syndrome.
by the court as a result of the trial...the court cannot sentence someone to torture...
It's only a liberal bleeding heart
because I clearly see that you, and I, and all of the general citizenry are enemies of the government.
Viewing/holding the constraints of the Constitution on the government as conditional is the surest way to get those conditions expanded until it no longer applies to you and I — it is a short hop to lose what few liberties and protections we have left.
Crimes under amendment 8 would be the infliction of cruel/unusual punishment, imposition of excessive fines and bail.
The individuals held in Guantanamo who were captured on the field of battle are not subject to the protection of our own VIII Amendment.
So, are the protections geographically dependent?
Would it be Kosher for the government to take you to, say, Mexico and kill you there w/o trial because it's no longer subject to Amendment V?
Or is it a person's citizenship status whereupon the protections depend? Does a foreign national have the right to a jury trial under the 6th Amendment?
That's the major topic of discussion since all the libtards want these bastards transferred to the United States then supported by court appointed attorneys and tried under the laws that don't really apply to them.
There are laws whereby they may be dealt with — the problem is that these guys are being treated as lawful combatants rather than as unlawful combatants.
the Constitution should ONLY apply to American citizens...it is a contract between the parties involved and should not necessarily apply to anyone else. I, as an American citizen cannot be forced to testify against myself....that should not, as a matter of legal right, be extended to anyone else....they have no contract with our government at all...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.