Antonin Scalia says, "...it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face."

I'D GIVE HITLER A TITTY TWISTER

You are a rock star
You are a rock legend to the max
You can really knock it out
You can really wupp a horse's ass

Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia

You are a rocking maniac
You are a singing hyena
You are a rock star in Jesus' name
You can really rock Saddam Hussein's ass

Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia

You are my sweet man to the end
You are my honey lover to the max
You are my sweetheart for years to come
You are so lovable to me in the long run

Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia

Taco Bell, make a run for the border

I'M ALL BROKEN UP OVER THAT MAN'S RIGHTS

anyone who thinks this is the most blatant endorsement of torture to come out of america from a public official hasn't been paying much attention to the republican public platform. i think its right between the parts about "no new taxes" and "we need to build a catapult with which to launch illegal immigrants back to their native lands"

xposts lololol

Dunno if it's the most blatant, but it's one of 'em. And "conservative leadership" is pretty broad. I'm shocked by the fact that this is coming from a Supreme Court Justice. To me, that's the equivalent of a Senator, President or Vice-President.

He's just coming out and saying that America needs to torture people and needs to have special laws defining the circumstances under which this might happen.

This doesn't actually appear to be what he's saying...? He appears to be saying "None of this is affected by the Constitution and we don't know what would be necessary so drawing a line of acceptability based on hypothetical situations is premature."

It helps to bolster your position if you disagree with the statements as written as opposed to what you are imagining them to say. My biggest objection to this thread is the hysterical overreaction to a bunch of shit that HE DID NOT EVEN SAY while completely glossing over the grounds on which a) his opinion matters, and b) he can be attacked. If you're going to object to this, what is the fucking point of objecting in the least effective, most point-missing manner possible?

xpost: My God, have you never heard Cheney or Bush give an interview?

I'm shocked by the fact that this is coming from a Supreme Court Justice. To me, that's the equivalent of a Senator, President or Vice-President.

then I think you need to go back to high school and try a little harder

Fuck, John, are you really getting all shocked that liberals bug out when conservatives endorse torture? How is this any more surprising than what Scalia said?

Tombot: Equivalent in terms of significance of office, not any other sense.

I think John (like me) is getting frustrated that liberals can't effectively attack conservatives on any issue because at some point they ceded "logic" to them so that they could claim "feelings" but haven't really noticed or capitalized on the fact that conservatives abandoned logic a couple of decades ago when they picked a senile old man to be their figurehead for President.

im a little depressed that people find this even vaguely newsworthy, so not really shocked, more dismayed than anything at how excited people are to freak out about the same shit week after week

xpost yes

That should really say "...can't seem to effectively..." because that's a massively unfair statement but SRSLY WTF PEOPLE

This doesn't actually appear to be what he's saying...?

-- HD

Yeah, I know. Got carried away, and regretted that one as soon as I posted it. The Jack Bauer stuff is clearly a hypothetical though experiment, as you pointed out earlier. Scalia's saying two things:
1) Torture could be okay under certain circumstances, and...
2) As long as it's not "punishment", it's not really a Constitutional matter.

(I'd like to point out that the above unfair statement is probably most of the reason why I like Barack Obama, beyond the whole "lol he's me if I'd gone to law school" thing.)

Dan, I agree, generally, with what you're saying, but I do disagree strenuously with Scalia's argument against the prohibition of torture, and I think it is remarkable that we are even having this conversation in my country.

I think it is entirely possible to make arguments that are not crazy, irrational, or incomprehensible but which are still morally reprehensible, and that is exactly what Scalia is doing here.

im a little depressed that people find this even vaguely newsworthy, so not really shocked, more dismayed than anything at how excited people are to freak out about the same shit week after week

Seriously? So the acceptable response would be ... what? Just shrug it off? How is that a superior way to deal?

He appears to be saying "None of this is affected by the Constitution and we don't know what would be necessary so drawing a line of acceptability based on hypothetical situations is premature."

dan maybe you missed the part where scalia says:

it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face

You mean the part that is still part of the hypothetical situation where someone was about to blow up Los Angeles?

yep, that exact part -- the part where you say he steps back and says drawing lines based on hypothetical situations would be premature?

he actually says it would be absurd to forbid putting objects under the suspect's fingernails. in the interview.

How about the part where he says we can't prohibit torture because you never know when you might need to torture somebody?

i'm sure dan has a way to paraphrase that to make it mean the exact opposite, i.e. reasonable thing to say

Remember that he's grounding the hypothetical not just in the 24 hrs. scenario:

I certainly know you can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, “Oh, this is torture and therefore it’s no good.” You would not apply that in some real-life situations. It may not be a ticking bomb in Los Angeles, but it may be: “Where is this group that we know is plotting this painful action against the United States? Where are they? What are they currently planning?”

That's not some jokey TV meme, he's talking about Al-Qaeda. He's talking about what's acceptable in the here and now.

Hey guess what guys? I can fucking read.

finally!

Not directed at you personally, HD. But you were pushing the "it's all just hypothetical" bit kinda hard...

there's a joke in here somewhere about scalia literally being the devil's advocate but i appear to have lost my sense of humor entirely

if I was a tinfoil hat asshole I would be postulating that this shit is just to distract everybody from the telco eavesdropping amnesty act, but I know real liberals don't give a shit about that because it isn't as easy to flex indignant over unchecked surveillance as it is when somebody mentions that putting a needle in a finger might be okay in extraordinary circumstances

A total of 18 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for immunity: Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln.

nevermind what actually got passed in the senate though! one (1) of the supreme court guys said some jerko shit in an interview with the media!

It's just as easy to "flex indignant" over unchecked surveillance, but sometimes the wind blows this way, sometimes that. Why do the momentarily misplaced enthusiasms of other people bother you so much?

we tried to start discussion on the Democratic Congress thread.

Because Tombot is really Glenn Greenwald.

(xpost)

It was also discussed on the Primaries thread. McCain was for it. Obama against. Clinton did not vote.

more xposts

You are talking about a leading figure in a country where segregation was legal until 50 years ago and racism is institutionalized to the point where studies show that having a name that is too ethinc will limit your career options. You are also talking about a country that has always been incredibly hypocritical about "inalienable rights" and who should get them. Why is this a fucking surprise to you? Are you really that naive that you think that this country has any interest in being anything more that a self-serving remorah that leeches resources to support its wealthiest citizens and reacts violently against anything that threatens that? Furthermore, do you think that the most effective way to change that is to flail about wildly on a messageboard when someone in power says something you disagree with?

I hate to be all Dr Morbius here but WAKE THE FUCK UP

And now that THAT is out of the way, yes he is implicitly applying that logic to currently-held detainees and yes I think that's reprehensible. I don't think that shrieking "OMG HE ENDORSED TORTURE" is going to change his mind because Scalia is a smart guy who probably realizes that he is endorsing torture. If you want to attack him, you need to attack the rhetorical basis that allows him to make this facile argument, namely that torture is not punishment and therefore is not covered by the 8th Amendment. I see two ways of doing this:

- Making a counter-argument that torture contravenes "innocent until proven guilty" and is in fact doling out illegal punishment before guilt is proven;

- Drafting a new amendment to the Constitution restricting the use of torture.

The former is hard but not impossible. The second is probably nigh-impossible but (to me) infinitely preferable as the Supreme Court would then be completely beholden to it until such time arises where a later amendment stikes it down.

(I am sure there are more than two ways to combat this, those were just what came to mind.)

Making a counter-argument that torture contravenes "innocent until proven guilty" and is in fact doling out illegal punishment before guilt is proven

i thought that was at least supposed to be a given?? why is that hard?

tbh i think people outside certain internet circles aren't worked up about fisa because everyone has just assumed for awhile now that everything could be tapped at any time

that senator list is like a rollcall of gold-plated jerks

Why do the momentarily misplaced enthusiasms of other people bother you so much?

because I'm bored at work, I've read a bunch of other stuff already, this thread keeps popping up to the top and it's full of BORING OLD SHIT I'VE HEARD TEN BILLION TIMES BEFORE and everybody who tries to make any kind of INTERESTING point instead of just saying "OH MY GOD WHAT A TERRIBLE PERSON" gets dogpiled!

Okay so the fact that people are taking that as a "given" and not putting it forward as a counterargument might be why these arguments are getting so much traction.

HI DERE somewhat OTM in that long rant above.

Except for the part where you say "do you think that the most effective way to change that is to flail about wildly on a messageboard when someone in power says something you disagree with?"

WTF?!? No, we flail about on messageboards for flailing's sake. It's entertaining, and, if you're lucky informative. Personally, I find that it helps clarify my own thinking. I'm not sure what you're lashing out at.

Finally, it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment. That'd be nice, but a better short-term goal would be some legislation.

everybody who tries to make any kind of INTERESTING point instead of just saying "OH MY GOD WHAT A TERRIBLE PERSON" gets dogpiled

Why not offer some support to the interesting-point-makers, rather than just freaking out WTF YOU LOSERS SRSLY!

I'll admit that the major reason I started arguing with anybody on this thread is because right from the start folks showed up saying STFU WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS BORING SHIT U R DUM, and then my hackles raised.

some other great moments in argumentation you guys might want to tackle and try to work out for yourselves:

"Are you against the death penalty? Well what if someone raped and killed your family what then huh?"

"Do you believe in the right to life? No? Well what if they aborted Einstein/Ghandi/Jesus/your mom/you?"

so yeah i guess my point is that i cant comprehend how/why any of you are taking this even the least bit seriously, since logic negative 101 makes it a laughable and unworthy of discussion argumentative strategy.

YOO GUYS NO ONE EVEN WATCHES 24 ANYMORE GOD

This appears to be this thread's definition of "fun":

"DID YOU SEE WHAT HE SAID? WAHT A TOOL"
"Um, that's not precisely what he said and calling him a tool misses the point that needs to be addressed here"
"STUPID DUMBO YOU CAN'T READ"
"Okay fuck you then"
"YOU WANT A BAZILLION LITTLE TORTURE BABIES"
"No seriously, fuck you"
"FUCK YOU"
"Fuck you"
"FUCK YOU"
etc etc etc

that would be more fun to read

stop me before I mod in and edit all the posts to read like dan's summary

guys i think the only answer here is for courts to grant torture warrants specifying levels of pain depending on how good a case military prosecutors can make vs military-appointed defense lawyers

time would be of the essence cause we're talking about extreme situations, so there could be a sped-up process, kind of like speed dating

lolololololol i am bad for thinking that would be awesome right xpost

WORLDS MOST IMPORTANT XPOST NOTIFICATION RIGHT THERE PEOPLE

when scalia dies obama should appoint michelle obama to the scotus

Okay that would be awesome because that means Scalia would be dead within the next four years.