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."

Seriously, though, it's kind of relevant beyond "oh that's shocking thing to say". Right?

contederizer, that was the point I was making re: "his point is not as ludicrous in context as it is in the BBC article". I don't agree with his conclusion but he does actually come across as someone making a reasoned argument and not a complete and utter looney.

FB, the more shocking thing here is the blatant gamesmanship going on in that BBC article, much moreso than Scalia's bad analogy.

FB, the more shocking thing here is the blatant gamesmanship going on in that BBC article, much moreso than Scalia's bad analogy.

exactly

in the article or in the interview? they both seem pretty sound to me actually, journalistically (and i don't always say that about the articles that get posted on the bbc news site)

I will give Scalia this - he was the only one in the audience shown laughing at Colbert's WH Press Corp performance

Once again, here's the transcript:

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?”

information that is crucial to this society

http://inventorspot.com/files/images/internet_0.img_assist_custom.jpg

so is the issue that you dislike his choice of exaggerated and implausible strawman argument in favor of perhaps a different fantasy action television show?

xpost lol

contederizer, that was the point I was making re: "his point is not as ludicrous in context as it is in the BBC article".

-- HI DERE

Gotcha, but I think Scalia's thinking isn't clear. On the one hand, he says that "Jack Bauer" would never be convicted anyway, but he's still clearly trying to illustrate the need for specific legal permission to torture under certain circumstances. I don't think he intened to refute his own position as thoroughly as I'm arguing he did.

At least Scalia acknowledges that it's a ''tough question.''

dan i sympathize with what you're saying here but it's not as if we're castigating nikki sixx for making a really bad tiramisu, it's the senior member of the supreme court of the united states making john bolton-type arguments to a reporter from a country that has had its own citizens in guantanamo bay

i know i know scalia LOVES to talk shit like this, it is nothing new -- it still manages to boggle my mind though

is your point that this kind of public statement on the part of a US VIP is not notable? xposts

many xposts

The entire trascript is a thought experiment run out as a dialogue. Once you go past the "this isn't in my jurisdiction because the torture isn't intended as a punishment" dodge, you're dealing with an entirely ludicrous hypothetical situation that serves as its sole purpose to point out that you can manufacture any number of scenarios to draw a line as to what is "acceptable" but you can't make an effective determination as to what is "acceptable" until you are presented in the situation; it's the old "how would you react in this situation you've never been in?" question, the correct answer to which is "I don't know, I've never been in that situation." His point, which is dubious but not crazy, irrational or incomprehensible, is that if faced with an extraordinary threat, it seems unreasonable to disallow extraordinary measures to combat it. He is definitely following a "better to ask for forgiveness" methodology here and, while I don't agree with it, I don't think he's crazy or unreasonable for voicing it.

The article makes it sound like he said "lol torture is awesome I'M JACK BAUER".

so is the issue that you dislike his choice of exaggerated and implausible strawman argument in favor of perhaps a different fantasy action television show?

-- John Justen

The issue is not so much how he says it, it's what he's actually saying. Sure, "conservative talking torture, big deal," but this is one of the most direct and unequivocal pro-torture statements I've heard from a major public figure in the last few years. No fudging about what is or isn't torture. No fussy condemnation of it as a preface to endorsing it. 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. Moreover, he's couching this as a giant "fuck you" to anyone who might disagree.

It's way more crazy than you're letting on. The fact that this was presented in a discussion directed at citizens of an allied country is just icing on the cake.

i think this storm in a teacup proves that Godwins law should be renamed JACK BAUER OMGWTF's law.

I have no data to back this up but I find it incredibly hard to believe that this is the most blatant endorsement of torture to come from American conservative leadership. The most recent, yes.

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.