Scalia: Nothing In The Constitution Prohibits Torture

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is joining the debate over the Senate's torture report by saying it is difficult to rule out the use of extreme measures to extract information if millions of lives were threatened.

Scalia tells a Swiss radio network that American and European liberals who say such tactics may never be used are being self-righteous. The 78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all," especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.

Scalia says nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.

The interview took place at the court on Wednesday, the day after the release of the Senate report detailing the CIA's harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists. Radio Television Suisse aired the interview on Friday.

-30-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-torture-constitution

[SoapBox]

1. It's about morals, you sick fuck.

What does your religion say about torture, asshole?

Evil is, as evil does.

[hollysmom]

4. don't forget the Inquisition!

[SoapBox]

11. He would be love'n that!

To the rack with you!

[uhnope]

28. Prohibition under International Law: Torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal...

Prohibition under International Law

Torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting. The United States is a party to the following conventions (international treaties) that prohibit torture: the American Convention on Human Rights (signed 1977) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1977; ratified 1992).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_in_the_United_States#Legislation_and_treaties_regarding_torture

Signed treaties = law of the land

[freebrew]

34. ^^THIS^^

[AngryAmish]

39. Is IS a signatory to this treaty?

Maybe we can prosecute them!

[Red Mountain]

57. Is? Isis?

Maybe we can.

[Drahthaardogs]

90. Catholicism says you cannot fight evil with evil

Scalia is not the Super Catholic he thinks he is.

[MyNameGoesHere]

2. Everyone once in a while I forget about my list

of people who I want to take a dump down their throats. Thanks Scalia for reminding me to check if you are still on it. You are.

[starroute]

3. I realized this to my dismay back in the 80s

That was when the "ticking time bomb" scenarios started showing up, and I realized that even though the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and forcing people to testify against themselves, there's nothing in it to rule out torturing prisoners for information.

I never thought a Supreme Court justice would go so far as to claim it as a point of law, though. We've falling a lot further than I ever imagined.

[The Stranger]

6. I'm not understanding the notion that "there's nothing in it to rule out torturing prisoners for

. . . information."

I mean, the whole fucking document arose out an intellectual, political and social movement against "torturing prisoners for information."

How in fuck are people thinking that it doesn't rule it out?

[starroute]

48. Because they left a loophole

It's no different from all the other loopholes the GOP has been so good at exploiting -- like their current schemes to mess around with the Electoral College so that Republican candidates can win even without a majority of the popular vote.

The Constitution itself doesn't include any guarantees of personal rights. It's all about the powers of government and not the powers of the individual. If you think "the whole fucking document arose out an intellectual, political and social movement against 'torturing prisoners for information,'" you're taking an overly rosy view of many of our founding fathers.

The Bill of Rights was intended to correct that, but even that has no explicit prohibition of torture. It does include two prohibitions that are relevant -- but there's a gap between the two that you could drive a truck through.

5th Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

8th Amendment - "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

[Kelvin Mace]

33. The "ticking time bomb scenario" is nonsense

It makes for great melodrama, but just doesn't happen in the real world. Think about, you are captured by people you hate and you know where a bomb is, say a nuclear device that is going to go off in six hours. You are being tortured to reveal the location of the bomb. so do you:

1) Immediately tell people you despise so much that you want them to die in an atomic conflagration where the bomb is?

2) Lie and tell them about a false location so they can run out the clock and die like the dogs they are?

Torture is good for one and only one thing: Extracting false confessions.

Given a few days with Rummy, Cheney, Bush, Powell, Rice, Scalia, Yoo or any of the other people who claim that "enhanced interrogation" isn't torture, and you will be amazed at what they confess to.

[Vincardog]

42. I disagree the primary purpose of torture is to terrorize the populous. Do you want to protest

Political corruption and run the risk of having those sadists turned loose on you?

[Kelvin Mace]

43. The U.S. populous

isn't terrorized, since half the idiots believe in torture and think it will never happen to them.

[Vincardog]

44. I don't believe it is 1/2.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. You're right

it was 54%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702248.html

or 57%.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/24/Poll-Enhanced-interrogation-beats-torture/69391267039697/

of 43% but ten years later it is 53%.

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/cia_torture_report_polls_americans_support_torture_terrorism_suspects.html

Half the goddamned peopled in this country think 24 and The X-Files are documentaries.

[herding cats]

65. 18 U.S. Code § 2340A - Torture

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C - TORTURE
§?2340. Definitions
§?2340A. Torture
§?2340B. Exclusive remedies


Laws do exist which make torture illegal. Scalia is, I am sure, very aware of this and was just doing a bit of partisan smoke bombing on the subject. Either that or he's laying some groundwork for if a case were brought before him on an appeal of the above law, which I suppose is possible.

[RobinA]

68. Bear in Mind

That this is the same bunch who ruled that innocence doesn't matter when asked to allow potentially exculpatory but belated evidence in a capitol case.

[starroute]

70. They're rules monkeys

They believe that whether someone had a fair trial is more important than actual questions of guilt or innocence. And they believe that whatever knots you can twist the Constitution into trump any intentions of the people who wrote it.

They're living in a false reality -- but unfortunately, they have the power to make us live there as well. That's why speaking truth to power is essential. It's the only way of breaking through false realities.

[Bandit]

71. Yes there is

It is in the part describing US Treaties. They are after all the "Supreme Law of the Land" The US signed and ratified a Treaty specifically outlawing Torture. No "Law" that the Bush*/Cheney Cronies could devise could overrule a signed treaty..no matter what Scalia thinks.

[starroute]

72. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas don't think so

I've just been doing some googling, and found two things that seem to apply.

One is a discussion from 2006 of a Congressional attempt to overrule the Supreme Court's Hamden decision by simply declaring that the Bush administration's treatment of detainees was not in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
http://opiniojuris.org/2006/09/07/why-congress-can-override-the-supreme-courts-interpretation-of-international-law/

The second, and more directly relevant, has to do with a recent case in which a woman who had tried to poison her husband's mistress was charged under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. The Supreme Court ruled narrowly that local federal prosecutors had overreached in bringing the charges, but the (Koch-funded) Cato Institute had hoped for a more sweeping decision that "her conviction should be overturned because Congress has no constitutional authority to enact legislation that would help implement ratified treaties like the Convention on Chemical Weapons."

According to Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/04/right-wing-media-upset-with-supreme-courts-refu/199603

Right-wing media outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review Online were clearly upset that the Court refused to adopt the radical concurring opinions of conservative Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Scalia and Thomas, for their part, "uncritically embraced" the outlandish constitutional argument put forth by Cato that "Congress lacks any specific power to pass legislation necessary and proper to ensure that the United States abides by its treaty commitments."

Without admitting the breathtaking scope of their support of the Cato arguments, which law professor Eric Posner warned "reads the Constitution the way an evangelical might read the Bible, or a kindergartener might read a board book," NRO's writers were disappointed that Roberts didn't take the opportunity to disregard the Constitution's text and history in addition to rolling back modern precedent. They criticized Roberts for lacking "intestinal fortitude" and "very much wish[ed] that the constitutional principles set forth in Scalia's and Thomas's opinions were the settled understanding of the Court."

What this makes clear (and my googling backs it up) is that there's a general right-wing agenda to weaken the application of treaty commitments to domestic affairs. Partly it's a matter of states rights -- they don't like the idea that treaties can give the Federal government broad new powers to override state laws. But the other part is that they just don't like the content of international agreements that tell Americans they can't bomb and maim and kill and mistreat women and children to their heart's content.

And the fact that the Terrible Three -- Scalia, Alito, and Thomas -- are behind this radical agenda, and that Scalia is now saying nothing in the Constitution prohibits torture, should give us all pause.

[Diclotican]

5. DonViejo

DonViejo


Everyone who's champion the use of torture - should have experienced it firsthand - water boarding - an all the other "fun stuff" CIA was doing in its "black sites" around the globe - Mr Scalia should at least be forthcoming with the possibility of been treated by the same things he more or less accept as a way of making sure they got information - even if the information is quotable at best - at worst, it is outright lies...

And I guess also - if a nuclear devise is out there - I suspect traditional intelligence operations is far more effective than using torture - who might end up in nothing - and then a city or at least a part of the city is going up in flames...

Diclotican

[christx30]

7. Except for that Bill of Rights thing.

But no one ever pays attention to that anyway. "Cruel and Unusual" is subjective, right Antonin? What's cruel and unusual for person A might be perfectly reasonable for person B.


Ass

[24601]

86. The Amendment refers to Punishment - actions as the result of conviction & sentence.

[leftynyc]

8. If the 8th amendment doesn't

forbid torture, what the fuck does it forbid?

[Raine1967]

15. Exactly!

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


It makes me sad that he doesn't know the very basics of the constitution.

[BootinUp]

22. If I am not mistaken, Scalia

has described the CIA methods of torture as not being cruel and unusual compared to common practices used when the constitution was written.

[elehhhhna]

52. waterboard his ass and give a rectal feeding

Anything just make that sick fuck stfu.

[RobinA]

69. He Would Probably

Reason that torture is not punishment and therefore not subject to the "cruel and unusual" limit.

Plus, note that the prohibition says cruel AND unusual. It would appear that these days torture isn't all that unusual, so there you have it, the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. At least according to Scaliathink.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. I suppose it forbids torture as PUNISHMENT.

That is, as retribution for wrongdoing. Since you're only doing it to interrogate or extract a confession, not to punish, it doesn't fall under the restriction on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Or some such legal sophistry.

[leftynyc]

23. That this cretin is tasked with

interpreting our laws could be the worst thing Pres Reagan ever did. He's the slimiest jurist ever.

[christx30]

63. Was watching The Newsroom on Sunday

and they kind of covered it. Jailtime for contempt of court can't be punitive, only coercive.
Same kind of deal with what you're saying. We can't torture someone to punish them. Only to get information out of them. It's such a fine line, it's practically microscopic. I don't want to think that the line is there.

[still_one]

78. exactly

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Adrahil]

85. Ah, but you see....

I bet Scalia would argue that torture for the purposes of extracting information is not "punishment."

That sick fuck cannot die of a heart attack soon enough.

Yes. I wish him dead. It's a LIFETIME appointment. Please Santa, it's all I want for Christmas.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Not only does the Constitution prohibit 'cruel' punishments it prohibits 'unusual' ones. n/t

[Derek V]

10. No

I was going to say something about mafia torture practices, then realized I'd be just as big a bigot as he is. I'm sorry I even thought about it.

[cstanleytech]

12. I wish he could be removed from his seat on the court as comments like this are prejudicial imo. nt

[mahannah]

19. I wish he could be handed his seat.

[closeupready]

13. This from the same one who reasoned "Money = Speech", right?

So there you go.

[TNNurse]

14. How long can a person without a soul live??

How old is Scalia?

I really did not think he could say anything worse that everything he ever said before, I was mistaken.

[Cal33]

17. Why doesn't that old coot simply retire? His sadistic impulses are becoming far too

obvious. People with such impulses shouldn't be judges in the first place - especially
not a Supreme Court Judge.

[Judi Lynn]

18. Just what we'd expect from the Supreme Court Justice who went hunting with Dick Cheney.

Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 11:35 AM EDT (1535 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to recuse himself from an upcoming case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he recently hunted and dined.

"I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned," Scalia said in a 21-page memorandum, rejecting suggestions of an appearance of a conflict of interest.

"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote.

Cheney's office had no immediate response.

In the detailed memo, Scalia cited legal precedent and offered personal observations about the controversy.

He dismissed a call from the environmental group Sierra Club that he recuse himself because a January hunting trip he and Cheney took together gave the "appearance of impropriety."

That trip came three weeks after the high court agreed to hear a case over whether the White House had to turn over documents relating to the energy task force Cheney headed in 2001.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/scalia.recusal/

[Marthe48]

29. What a complete liar

He can't even tell himself the truth.

[The Wizard]

67. "The most common lie

is that with which one lies to ones self. Lying to others is relatively the exception."
(Nietzsche)

[freshwest]

89. This is the Koch Court. They don't get to retire without cement galoshes. Still mischief yet to do.

[truthisfreedom]

20. Seems obvious he's talking about torture by us in other countries.

Which is what took place. He's such a sick fucker. Instant Karma, dude.

[blkmusclmachine]

21. Jackass

[DallasNE]

24. Answers Question Not Asked

Maybe Scalia was thinking someone was asking if torture was not considered cruel and unusual punishment. Who knows. But Scalia needs to look at the full body of law, especially treaties that outlaw torture. He seems to dismiss selectively certain bodies of law designed specifically to cover this situation. But then that is typical Scalia.

[Marthe48]

25. There's no Commandment about children either

Maybe God and Man thought we had enough sense to know cherishing children and not torturing are no-brainers. Scalia shouldn't be a judge, or anything else.

[uhnope]

26. Reagan's legacy in more ways than one

Reagan gave us Scalia and Reagan gave us US-trained death squads in El Salvador, a precursor to Bush's torture regime

[Gregorian]

27. Scalia just doesn't get America.

[demwing]

30. I can't wait for that fucker to die

a swift, painless death from completely natural causes. The world will be a better place.

I rarely admit to hating anyone, but for this scumbag I can make an exception.

[Mike Nelson]

31. Scalia is an...

...embarrassment. He should be removed from the Court.

[Deadbeat Republicans]

32. And in this day, of all days.

The 14th anniversary of the supreme court's selection for George W. Bush as our pResident.

[Gothmog]

35. Scalia has been going senile for some time now

The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment means no torture

[jwirr]

38. Absolutely.

[herding cats]

66. He's lost his legal mind to his partisan politics.

It's actually rather terrifying to witness in someone wielding the power he does.

[Gothmog]

74. This is not an isolated incident

Scalia has been making a number of crazy claims lately. Scalia's dissent in both Texas v. Lawrence and now the DOMA cases are showing a pattern that Scalia is losing it on certain issues including his hatred of homosexuals

[og1]

36. Conservative catholic

As a good conservative catholic and being a judge he should know all about torture and in the future he will refer to it as the American inquisition!

[jwirr]

37. Maybe not you old fool but have you ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? We lead the fight to

get them and signed the treaty to obey them. That is was international war crimes are.

[roamer65]

40. Too bad he just wouldn't die.

A heart attack would be nice or just passing away in his sleep.

The constitution directly prohibits torture and he knows it.

[aggiesal]

41. What is he talking about? ...

The Constitution does not explicitly mention torture, but it doesn't mention murder either.

[Font color=red]"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." ...
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2[/font]
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause
(This if from the heritage foundation. It just makes it that much more ironic)

Once our country agrees to a treaty it becomes law.

[Font color=red]"The United States is one 156 nations that have ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This is an international human-rights treaty ..."[/font]
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-torture-report-20141209-story.html

The Federal Torture Act states that whoever [Font color=red]“outside the United States”[/font] commits or attempts to commit torture shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years “and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” ...

Why did GW McIdiot set up shop in Guantanamo?

[alfredo]

45. The US signed on to a treaty against torture, it is now the Supreme law of the land. Article VI

[sakabatou]

46. So, any law after the Constitution is BS to him?

[cosmicone]

47. What about prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment? n/t

[George II]

50. Don't let that get in the way

[George II]

49. He should travel to Geneva and give a lecture on the subject.

[Scootaloo]

51. Article VI, you dumb motherfucker

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

We have signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions. We have signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture. According to the constitution, these treaties are as much US law as the constitution is, and judges - including disgusting gasbags like you, Scalia - are bound to recognize them as such.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. 5th Amendment too:

... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

Torturing someone for incriminating information is compelling them to be a witness against themselves; and depriving them of liberty (and life, in some cases) without due process of law. If the law tells you how to treat prisoners, the constitution says you have to follow it.

[merrily]

53. Not even the Constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment?

Can the alleged originalist claim with a straight face that the Framers would not have found, for example, forced rectal feeding of hummus and nuts both cruel and unusual.

What a disgusting liar this man is. I've lost all respect for the SCOTUS It's just another partisan hack body, only this one is not even vulnerable to voters, even in theory.

[Omaha Steve]

56. Cruel and unusual seems to come to mind (Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

I guess since they weren't convicted they are fair game to torture.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/cruel-and-unusual-punishment.html

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, individuals convicted of a crime have the right to be free of "cruel and unusual" punishment while in jail or prison. This means that after a criminal defendant is convicted and sentenced, the Constitution still acts to guarantee his or her fundamental rights concerning conditions of confinement and treatment by corrections personnel. Inmates' Eighth Amendment challenges to punishment and confinement conditions are typically brought in connection with federal civil rights laws, including 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

What is "Cruel and Unusual" Punishment?

No universal definition exists, but any punishment that is clearly inhumane or that violates basic human dignity may be deemed "cruel and unusual." For example, in 1995, a federal court in Massachusetts found that inmates' rights were violated when they were held in a 150-year-old prison that lacked toilets, and was fraught with vermin and fire hazards.

Challenging Confinement Conditions: What Must be Shown?

When challenging conditions of confinement, such as a corrections institution's procedure for providing food or medical services, a prisoner usually must show that the institution's officials or officers acted with "deliberate indifference" to the prisoner's constitutional rights. This means that:

The institution's employees were aware of some danger or risk of harm to an inmate; and
The employees chose not to take any steps to remedy the problem; and
The inmate's fundamental rights were violated as a result.
Deliberate indifference is a fairly high standard to meet, because the inmate must show more than mere negligent behavior on the part of corrections personnel.

[Thor_MN]

58. Nothing in the constitution about Tar and Feathering a corrupt asshole either.

[Plucketeer]

59. I'll bring the tar

you bring the feathers.

[Thor_MN]

60. Ahhhh, considering you screenname...

Wouldn't switching that make more sense?

[Plucketeer]

82. LOL...

Astutely observed. It's just that daubing on the hot tar seems more appealing than applying the feathers,

[Thor_MN]

83. I'll bring the tar, you bring the feathers and we will trade

before showing hizzoner what isn't in the Constitution.

[Plucketeer]

84. Deal!

[TimeToEvolve]

61. WHAAAAAAAAAAT??????!!!

that's all i can really say...

[Jefferson23]

62. I can't stand this fucking guy and he is wrong and he likely knows he is wrong. He is so God damn

political it is sickening:

It is clear from some of the complaints about the absence
of a bill of rights including a guarantee against cruel and unusual
punishments in the ratifying conventions that tortures and bar-
barous punishments were much on the minds of the complain-
ants,
43
but the English history which led to the inclusion of a pred-
ecessor provision in the Bill of Rights of 1689 indicates additional
concern with arbitrary and disproportionate punishments.
44
Though few in number, the decisions of the Supreme Court inter-
preting this guarantee have applied it in both senses.

Style of Interpretation
At first, the Court was inclined to an historical style of inter-
pretation, determining whether or not a punishment was ‘‘cruel
and unusual’’ by looking to see if it or a sufficiently similar variant
was considered ‘‘cruel and unusual’’ in 1789.
45
But in
Weems v.
United States
46
it was concluded that the framers had not merely
intended to bar the reinstitution of procedures and techniques con-
demned in 1789, but had intended to prevent the authorization of
‘‘a coercive cruelty being exercised through other forms of punish-
ment.’’ The Amendment therefore was of an ‘‘expansive and vital
character’’
47
and, in the words of a later Court, ‘‘must draw its
meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the
progress of a maturing society.’’

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-9-9.pdf

Geneva Conventions, too bad for him that regardless of his longing for ambiguity in the US
Constitution..we're bound here:

What is Common Article Three?

This article of the Geneva Conventions bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs. Until recently it remained unclear whether the article applied to CIA interrogators, located overseas, who were questioning high-ranking members of al-Qaeda and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants.” In July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay. "Quoting [Common Article Three] is like quoting the Bible for international lawyers," says Peter Danchin, a Columbia University legal expert.

[valerief]

64. Scalia is privy to the Whimsy Amendment. It's only available to the PTB, like himself.

To mere mortals like us, it's hidden from view.

[starroute]

73. This is part of a larger conservative agenda

See what I posted above at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014963744#post72

The short version is that there is currently a right-wing argument going around that treaties only regulate relationships between nations and that Congress doesn't have the power to write laws that apply international agreements to domestic affairs.

The Koch-funded Cato Institute is pushing this argument strongly, and Scalia, Alito, and Thomas buy into it fully.

The issue is clearly larger than just torture -- for example, it would affect any climate change agreements the US might enter into in the future. And I think this is far from the last we've heard of it.

[Sunlei]

75. guess we should have tortured the ciggie corps for a better 'settlement'

[still_one]

76. Well we sure have had to put up with him and his asinine comments for all these years, and that is a

form of mental torture

[still_one]

77. Not exactly Mr. Scalia. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Cruel and unusual punishment,

and due process. I guess the asshole has never heard of the 8th amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

[RationalMan]

79. It may not be in the Constitution but......

it is arguably illegal under U.S and International Law and the Geneva Conventions. There is some question as to whether the protections against torture extend to "enemy combatants" in an undeclared war but there is at least a reasonable legal assertion they do.

Even if not, there are the practical and moral aspects of torture. It is well established that torture does not result in getting accurate and actionable information. If the U.S. wants to be the "city on the hill" to the world it must demonstrate moral leadership. Torture harms the image of America abroad and actually increases the risks to American interests worldwide.

[7wo7rees]

80. This man must be removed. n/t

[Posteritatis]

81. ... Hence, y'know, the rest of the American legal code. (nt)

[AlphaCentauri]

87. Does the constitution allows a Vice-President to order Torture? n/t

[yurbud]

88. millions of lives were NOT threatened

[Octafish]

91. Perfectly NAZI thing to say.

Guy's dad was the proud head of a fascist society before WWII.

Dershowitz on Scalia

He's an interesting guy. His father was a teacher at Brooklyn college when I was there. His father was a proud member of the American-Italian fascist party and got his doctorate at Casa Italiano at Columbia at a time when in order to get your doctorate you had to swear an oath to Mussolini. So he comes from an interesting background and he went to a kind of military school in New York which was a place where many children of fascists were educated. Therefore to call him a conservative - he's never expressed any conservative priniciples - he's a statist. He's a man who is well in the tradition of Franco and Mussolini. Not Hitler. He's not an anti-Semite - there's no bigotry or racism in him at all. But he is somebody who has these views which would have been very comfortable in fascist Italy or fascist Spain.

SOURCE: http://www.eschatonblog.com/2004/05/dershowitz-on-scalia_19.html

[Odin2005]

92. 8th Amendment, you senile fucker!

[Hekate]

93. The "originalist" forgot about the "cruel and unusual punishment" part. Scalia is as scary as Cheney

All our old bad ghosts have risen from the grave of the BushCheney administration, and won't go away until we drive a stake through their black evil hearts.