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 ...
If it were restricted to courts, wouldn't it say so? After all, it clearly lays out in the 6th the legal right of the criminally accused to a jury trial, held in the relevant jurisdiction, and with the ability to defend himself. … Or would you say that the EPA's absurd $X-thousand/day fines are perfectly fine under the 8th Amendment?
very easy and the exact reason that we should NEVER criminalize terrorist activities. The druggies that you refer to are usually citizens of the U.S and thus entitled to Constitutional rights....the terrorists should be considered prisoners of conflict..not war, no Geneva convention rights, no Constitutional rights...only whatever human rights that we choose to extend...they are 1 inch above animals and should be treated as such.
Ah, so then it's perfectly fine to take a foreign national's possessions w/o warrant, force him to answer for a capital crime [at the time/location of incident], and kill him without ever appearing before a jury?
According to you that's all fine and dandy.
But let's hold to the contract
model a bit — Have you signed the Constitution? I'm pretty sure that no you haven't. Now, as someone who is not a signatory to the contract, how can you claim that you are one of the parties thereof?
What's to keep the Government from, say, enacting a law that makes citizenship dependent upon enrolling in ObamaCare?
We have seen that the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to felons, despite it being a normal act of the legislature
which strips them of this, and that said act is ex post facto and therefore prohibited and should be nullity — What's to stop them from setting up something similar to strip you of your citizenship?
Islam is at war with most of the world, including us, and they only understand barbarism. They use incredibly foolish people like you just before they slowly hack into your neck. You want to bestow the rights of citizens on enemy combatants. That is a liberal viewpoint and one I will not support.
I know this will come as a surprise, but declaring war when there is no country to declare it on is a bit tricky.
Though truthfully, that’s a dodge on your part. There’s no part of the Bill of Rights which says that the protections evaporate during war.
Also, you appear to have selective reading comprehension. I mentioned that the protections extend to legal residents (tourists are legally here right? )
Now what is cute here is how you’re trying to position me, without me actually going there. Do I think the NSA should spy on citizens? No, not without due process. I do, however, think they should spy on any damn other person on the planet if they can pull it off and there is a reasonable reason to do so. My position is clearly stated, yet also clearly ignored by you.
And once more somehow we get from me thinking government limitations stop at the border (but still apply to citizens elsewhere) to you expecting concentration camps to spring up if this government acts like every other one in the war and foreign espionage realm.
Bringing out a bible to thump me with is not a way of furthering the argument. We’re talking the constitution remember? I don’t recall that being a religious document.
I know you imagine the world will permit us to keep lily white gloves on, but history doesn’t agree. I don’t trust our government much at all. However I sure as hell trust it a good deal more than foreign governments. There is a balance to be struck, and it is tricky between granting government enough power to protect us from others but not to grab so much power to threaten us.
Who's talking about terrorists?
Oh, right, because I claim that these restrictions apply to the government somehow I'm defending terrorists.
Let me ask, what have you done to fight terrorism?
I went to Iraq.
Islam is at war with most of the world, including us, and they only understand barbarism.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't wage war.
They use incredibly foolish people like you just before they slowly hack into your neck. You want to bestow the rights of citizens on enemy combatants. That is a liberal viewpoint and one I will not support.
And our government uses incredibly foolish people, like you, to justify their disregard of the Constitution here, there, and oh a little there… it's you that enables the incremental destruction of the Constitution by allowing for it's absolutist language to be interpreted
as conditional.
True.
Also, you appear to have selective reading comprehension. I mentioned that the protections extend to legal residents (tourists are legally here right? )
They're not [legally] residents, are they?
And once more somehow we get from me thinking government limitations stop at the border (but still apply to citizens elsewhere) to you expecting concentration camps to spring up if this government acts like every other one in the war and foreign espionage realm.
Ah, so you're a firm believer that it can't happen here
?
Do you really trust the leaders of our government to behave morally, or with any restraint, when they think that you are their enemy?
Bringing out a bible to thump me with is not a way of furthering the argument. We’re talking the constitution remember? I don’t recall that being a religious document.
You got to talking about philosophical/worldview, in that manner it certainly is relevant.
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
— John Adams
I know you imagine the world will permit us to keep lily white gloves on, but history doesn’t agree. I don’t trust our government much at all. However I sure as hell trust it a good deal more than foreign governments. There is a balance to be struck, and it is tricky between granting government enough power to protect us from others but not to grab so much power to threaten us.
Who's said anything about foreign governments?
Seriously, all I've said is that (a) the Constitution's purpose is to bind the government, and (b) allowing the government to ignore said constraints is dangerous.
OK, enough. I’m getting off this merry go round. When you blithely blow right past my fundamental point no matter how often I restate it, I’m done wasting my time.
You have not convinced me or few FReepers who have proudly worn the military uniform of the USA that waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding is an Enhanced Interrogation Technique performed on high profile enemy combatants on foreign soil. Click the link for more info:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/torture-vs-enhanced-interrogation
That's not my premise, not at all.
I've said virtually nothing on waterboarding.
My premise is that the Constitution is not entirely silent on the subject of torture.
(BTW, one of those who has worn the uniform is me.)
Waterboarding is an Enhanced Interrogation Technique performed on high profile enemy combatants on foreign soil.
And?
If it's not torture, what's preventing it from being used domestically? Why isn't it used here in police interrogations?
I'm far less interested in the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture as I am the question of the Constitution's applicability. — I also find it somewhat disturbing that one of the more conservative Justices
(heck, anyone on the USSC) would say that the Constitution says absolutely nothing on the subject. — And these are the people we're supposed to defer to in all maters Constitutional?
That's what this is all about. You're trying to make it something that it's not.
OK, great, we are in complete agreement, then. Waterboarding is a harsh example of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT).
EIT is NOT torture.
And finally, SC Scalia said: “while there are U.S. laws against torture, nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. “I don’t know what article of the Constitution that would contravene.”
That’s good enough for me. Have a nice evening, fellow Vet and Friend.
You as well.
Most people would consider torture to be cruel… maybe even unusual. Isn't that what makes it torture?
The Bill of Rights applies to American citizens or legal residents.
The terrorists aren't members off this class. Nor are they members of any class covered by the Geneva Convention.
As "illegal combatants", they are subject to being shot on sight, if the capturing force prefers. From there, it's not a long stretch to allowing "extreme interrogation tehniques".
Personally, I would not consider waterboarding "torture". The subject is not injured or maimed. They walk out of the room in the same condition they walked in.
And, since we subject 28,000 of our own troops and agents to the practice to familiarize them with it, I don't think we're in the business of torturing our own troops.
That's not what the Bill of Rights says; here's what it says:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.Now, considering that, it must be of course the government to which the Bill of Rights applies because if it applies to citizens or residents then it is not limiting the government. — If this is not the case, then what other conditions could we add to it? Maybe the Bill of Rights doesn't protect citizens who are outside the US… maybe it's some other conditions that can be added.
The terrorists aren't members off this class. Nor are they members of any class covered by the Geneva Convention.
I never said they were.
As "illegal combatants", they are subject to being shot on sight, if the capturing force prefers. From there, it's not a long stretch to allowing "extreme interrogation tehniques".
I have no problem w/ shooting them on sight.
But there is a huge difference between summary execution and torture.
Most of the Guantanamo Bay crap is directly due to the imaginary category that was created as a middle ground between lawful- and unlawful-combatant.
Personally, I would not consider waterboarding "torture". The subject is not injured or maimed. They walk out of the room in the same condition they walked in.
*shrug* — I am rather undecided on the issue.
The problem I see is, like this thread shows, the willingness to read the absolute words of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and then rationalize transgression thereof. — The point is that the Constitution has to matter especially when it makes government's job harder, otherwise it is useless: applying only when convenient… is that what our Rule of Law amounts to?
And, since we subject 28,000 of our own troops and agents to the practice to familiarize them with it, I don't think we're in the business of torturing our own troops.
I'm not sure saying our government does it to our own
is a good justification. After all, the NSA routinely ignores the 4th Amendment, does that mean that the police shouldn't be bound by the 4th amendment because the NSA does it?
I liked your observation on the changing of the most cruel and barbaric practices in England. I had not done my homework on the more humane edict of the VIII Amendment to the Constitution.
The wording is almost exactly the same in the Bill of Rights of December 1689. This was read in the English parliament in front of King William III and Mary, his Queen. I know that some good things were retained by the Framers of the Constitution, of English law.
As suspected, some vile and cruel things were still enacted by both countries. This before final punishment was meted out. I am sure the Framers of the Constitution were appalled by these practices, previously carried out in England. Especially under Elizabeth 1st. They wanted a swift end in the case of the death sentence. It being enough in itself.
Excuse the ramble.
You're talking the difference between punishment under the penal system for crimes committed - a bit different than trying to stop a large-scale murder that is in the mill.
One case is someone stole your daughter's car and has been through the process.
The other scenario is the person has kidnapped your daughter and she will die a horrible death if you don't get info from him right now - what constraints do you put on yourself?
By calling it murder you've opened the door to treating it as a crime, under the penal system, and not as war-like acts. — Moreover, the 8th is not constrained to the penal system, or do you assert that the $X-thousand/day fines the EPA imposes on individuals are not covered under the 8th?
One case is someone stole your daughter's car and has been through the process.
The other scenario is the person has kidnapped your daughter and she will die a horrible death if you don't get info from him right now - what constraints do you put on yourself?
Rather contrived, but it also shows an apparent & interesting assumption on your part: that the Constitution is for restraining individuals and not government.
Cold, dark rooms. Loud music. Sleep deprivation. Diet manipulation. Not torture.
And neither is waterboarding -- because there is no physical injury or maiming. Nor any risk of death...only a perception of one.
Words mean things. And my definition of "torture" requires physical injury or deprivation.
I'd agree that most of those aren't torture; actually there's only one that I'm undecided/unconvinced on — I'm still undecided on waterboarding (I never experienced it myself), but it would be untrue to say that it isn't depriving one of something, even something physical, that is needed for life: air. (Albeit for a limited and controlled time.)
But this does lead to another question: must it be torture to be cruel and unusual
?
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.