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'm sure there's some ridiculous cost-effective analysis formula we could apply here

This reminds me of arguments I had about big-time sports at my school. "Do we argue that this wastes money or that it's wrong on a philosophical level?" "If we say it wastes money, people will listen." "But if it starts making money, we've lost our ground." "But it's probably not going to start making money," etc.

maybe we could have applied it to this thread

xpost

torture an accountant maybe

WE KNOW THERES A COST BENEFIT MODEL. TELL US WHAT IT IS OR WE DUNK YOU AGAIN.

lolz

Awesome.

give us an answer or 500 new posts by 3pm

I think you're making an interesting argument, contenderizer, but what have you got to back it up?

Well, I could go dig around for stuff, and maybe I will, but look at it this way: "Torture" is at least partially a pejorative term. It's not a clearly defined thing, like "sky" or "egg". At some fuzzy, ill-defined point bad treatment becomes mistreatment, and at another, similarly fuzzy point, mistreatment becomes "torture". Of course, we'll all easily agree that eye gouging and genital burning are torture. But what about prolonged isolation? What about sleep deprivation? What about scary stories?

When we say that "torture doesn't work" we're not really saying anything, especially if we haven't clearly defined what we mean by torture. It's clear that some forms of bad treatment can elicit information from suspects. The game of "good cop, bad cop" is essentially a mild form of torture, and you never hear any argument that it doesn't work. Causing people to be confused, worried or physically uncomfortable can loosen tongues and every cop knows this. Furthermore, no matter how information is retreived, there's always some chance that it might be bogus. Investigators always have to verify everything, anyway.

Torture" is at least partially a pejorative term. It's not a clearly defined thing, like "sky" or "egg".

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. I know it when i see it.

I mean lolz at CIA/FBI running around fact-checking every false lead

That's exactly what they do, all day, every day, no matter how that lead was generated.

I figured we were going by the (granted kinda vague) "physical intimidation used to elicit information" definition of torture

WAHT U MEAN BY "EGG"?????

what if we ask them out and then break their hearts?? fuckin nobody gets over that

I know it when i see it.

Yeah, me too. But I'm not sure that everybody sees things the same way.

egg torture

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/sahuber/rpd/Pictures/Broken%20Egg.JPG

That's exactly what they do, all day, every day, no matter how that lead was generated.

O RLY

lolz re: Cueball, 9/11 ad infinitum

Defining torture as physical intimidation opens the door to a lot of practices that everyone in the world but the US classes as torture. Starvation, sleep dep, forced positions, etc.

all of those are torture

yeah well the US is wrong

x-post

quel surprise

Cueball, 9/11 ad infinitum

All that proves is that they're not terribly good at what they're supposed to do. Has nothing to do with whether or not info gained by torture is as reliable as info gained by other means (magic 8-ball, trained monkeys, etc.)

Egg torture was awesome, btw

it was wrong

I am all for trained monkey intelligence gathering btw

they'll teach those eggs a lesson

From Back in June: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-jack-bauer/

The Globe and Mail reported that Scalia came to the defense of Jack Bauer and his torture tactics during an Ottawa conference of international jurists and national security officials last week. During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ”

Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?”

“I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”

yow scalia feelin himself

Here's the transcript from the BBC interview:

BBC: Tell me about the issue of torture, we know that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under the 8th amendment. Does that mean if the issue comes up in front of the court, it’s a ‘no-brainer?’

SCALIA: Well, a lot of people think it is, but I find that extraordinary to begin with. To begin with, the constitution refers to cruel and unusual punishment, it is referring to punishment on indefinitely — would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime. But a court can do that when a witness refuses to answer or commit them to jail until you will answer the question — without any time limit on it, as a means of coercing the witness to answer, as the witness should. And I suppose it’s the same thing about “so-called” torture.

Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about. Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.

BBC: It’s a question that’s been raised by Alan Derschowitz and other people — this idea of ticking bomb torture. It’s predicated on the basis that you got a plane with nuclear weapons flying toward the White House, you happen to have in your possession — hooray! — the person that has the key information to put everything right, and you stick a needle under his fingernail — you get the answer — and that should be allowed?

SCALIA: And you think it shouldn’t?

BBC: All I’m saying about it, is that it’s a bizarre scenario, because it’s very unlikely that you’re going to have the one person that can give you that information and so if you use that as an excuse to permit torture then perhaps that’s a dangerous thing.

SCALIA: Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can an infliction of pain be?

There are no easy answers involved, in either direction, but 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?”

what if we ask them out and then break their hearts?? fuckin nobody gets over that

-- gff, Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:43 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

^^
so otm

A lot of my ideas about the potential effectiveness of torture come from this book, published (rather ironically) in 2000: Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People (The Dynamics of Torture), by Joseph Conroy. Read it last year. Fascinating and well-written, if incomplete. He interviewed a large number of torturers and torturees over a number of years, and cites interviews with and writings by many others. The book is primarily about how societies ignore, justify and/or cover-up torture, but it covers a lot of related subjects & ideas in the process. Although it's not Conrad's intent (not at all), I saw in the book a pretty good argument for the at least occasional effectiveness of torture.

By the way, I'm providing the link above to highlight the book, not the site's critique of it. Critique is worthless.

So, this is what really surprises me: Scalia is the one who brings up Jack Bauer and the exploding LA argument.

When asked about torture and the 8th amendment, supreme court justice is all like lol JACK BAUER BITCHES DO YOU WANT TO DIE?

I had honestly assumed that the interviewer brought up the ticking bomb scenario. This is much more emberrassing.

when superman locked general zod in the phantom zone, do you think any jury would have convicted him?

I know. It's hard not to get the feeling that he's slipping over into dementia.

contenderizer i think the distinction between moral and 'practical'/utilitarian etc arguments is contentious. to get all rorty, i don't make this sort of distinction and i don't see why i should. arguments are bad when they are very vague and hypothetical and they're bad when they're focussed on a very narrow set of outcomes.

people that make the distinction between moral and practical are trying to blag super metaphysical justification for what they don't want to pay attention to ("just doing my job", "bomb in LA")

i think all of us object to it both morally and on practical grounds, just saying that the moral argument has kind of been pushed into shades of gray territory or late so the effectiveness argument undermines that

so glad I had work to do today, this is a big circular clusterfuck

lol it's torturous amirite

the funny thing is that while we're all subtly arguing the finer points of this, ONE OF OUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IS ACTUALLY BASING HIS THINKING ON JACK FUCKING BAUER

it's not even circular, a circle requires two dimensions

the moral argument has kind of been pushed into shades of gray territory or late so the effectiveness argument undermines that

-- deej

Okay. Good point. I was saying that it seems like a tactical mistake (politically speaking) to focus primarily on the practical effectiveness of torture. But I guess the serious attention paid to this Jack Bauer OMG! bullshit kinda makes the opposite true.

dude was obv using a fictional character to argue a legal hypothetical in a lighthearted manner - im sure hes not all lol logans run in chamber

ONE OF OUR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IS ACTUALLY BASING HIS THINKING ON JACK FUCKING BAUER

In public, on the world stage. Lighthearted or not, it's still embarassing.

srsly

hes just being purposely trite in a lol im on the supreme court bitches sort of way

embarrassing, sure. but not really in the way some on this thread are making it out to be.

yeah the dude has a sense of humor in his opinions and speeches and such

No, I'm sure Scalia is completely convinced that the Jack Bauer scenario is a viable one that needs to be diligently protected against; after all, it's not like a judge would ever have to make use of rhetoric to make a point.

If Scalia was all about Logan's Run in chambers I'd like him more!

Scalia sucks enough without distorting his comments into self-parody.