US Supreme Court Judge says Constitution does not protect Americans from being Tortured
Posted February 13th, 2008 by Devon_Saunders
output
This just in...
Posted Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:40am AEDT
Updated Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:38am AEDT
A United States Supreme Court judge says it is not clear that the American constitution protects people from torture.
Justice Antonin Scalia says the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.
But he says it would be absurd not to inflict pain on someone when they had key knowledge of an imminent attack.
"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?" he asked.
"I don't think these are easy questions at all, in either direction, but I certainly know you can't come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, 'oh it's torture and therefore it's no good'," he said.
"You would not apply that in some real life situations."
- BBC
Nothing to see here folks... just keep walking.. blah
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The scary thing
The scary thing is that Scalia is a neocon's idea of a strict Constitutionalist. And this is what McCain is promising to appoint more of.
Clarence Thomas is the only one of them that I trust to actually read the Constitution as written. He has even called into question the Court's prior decisions on the commerce power. If we had a court full of Thomases, it would be a different world.
Are Judges Americans?
Are Judges Americans?
Hmmmmmm....
Not Good!
Who Governs the Governless?
imminent attack
right wing talk radio always uses the "imminent attack" argument in favor of torturing. They use the scenario what if we had a detainee that had knowledge of an imminent attack on a major city and would torture be acceptable? They use it to try and convince everyone that it is OK to torture one if it saves millions.
Am I the only one that finds that scenario to be quite a stretch?
Spreading Fear...
seems to be the name of the game, all right. To answer your question, does the end justify the means? Not the way they are using it. It's just used to further erode our rights, IMHO
Fear-mongering is the oldest
Fear-mongering is the oldest poltical game in the book --- and still one of the most effective, as the mass of people are and have always been unthinking sheep in search of a "leader' to "protect" them, and so are perfect prey to the masterful manipulation of their emotions by those psychopaths who ironically are immune to empathy or any emotions but their own.
Agree totally
Sad though to see the US fall for the same crap that virtually every other civilization has had to... and we're staring it in the face because of human nature.
An abominable interpretation
.
Scalia hung out with Rehnquist too long. Dear Lord, what vile crap that spews from the high bench.
We deserve better.
One Justice does not a decision make...
Four of his mates would need to be on board with that interpretation, and at this point, I'll call that highly unlikely. Plus someone would actually need to bring that case to the Court.
Justices have been known to comment on lots of things for pretty much ever- but those comments don't make legal policy. Not a bad thing.
I agree
However, he is considered to be a public figure, so his words do carry some weight with the general population. And it's a scary comment coming from one in his position.
I would be interested to
I would be interested to know the context of this. War has always been exempted from normal rules of law and due process. The right of habeas corpus for prisoners of war does not obtain; why would you give a German Nazi prisoner the right to challenge his detention before Federal Civilian court?
However, the idea of torturing citizens in a non-combat situtation seems plainly to violate the principle of due process; it inflicts punishment before the question of guilt is resolved. What is allowed in combat situations is a totally separate issue I do not feel qualified to comment on.
.
.
.
Considering Scalia's regular attacks on America,
Can we then torture him?
Hang 'em all.
All the criminals who take an oath to the constitution should be tried for treason and hanged when they violate that sacred oath. We, The People are supposed to be the final authority. I think it's way past time to remember that and start holding these creeps accountable to the law.
Live Free Or Die
Unsure.
But to be honest, it is a rather pleasant mental picture right now....