Merged Scalia is dead

[wareyin]

Looking for something else, found this and can't resist:

Headline Scalia Defends Torture.

During a BBC interview in 2008 Antonin Scalia defended the use of torture in certain situations:



Scalia then gave an example of when torture might be permissible: someone has a bomb hidden that is about to "blow up Los Angeles." The BBC interviewer follows up:




Like a Monty Python skit come to life. Or as Antonin's mom might have put it: "Please, don't get him started!"

Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, completely ignored the 8th Amendment? I can only hope that his replacement is capable of reading the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

 

[applecorped]

the hate here is delicious

 

[theprestige]

Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, completely ignored the 8th Amendment? I can only hope that his replacement is capable of reading the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

The 8th Amendment addresses penalties for crimes. It has nothing to say about interrogating enemy prisoners for information.

Now, if he said torture could be used to extract a confession admissible in court, I'd strenuously object.

And if he said that torture could be used to punish a crime, I'd also point out that the 8th Amendment forbids it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

the hate here is delicious

I'm constantly amazed by some people's ability to trumpet their own psycopathy when they try to insult or troll others...

 

[wareyin]

The 8th Amendment addresses penalties for crimes. It has nothing to say about interrogating enemy prisoners for information.

Now, if he said torture could be used to extract a confession admissible in court, I'd strenuously object.

And if he said that torture could be used to punish a crime, I'd also point out that the 8th Amendment forbids it.

Do you think that only the court is bound by the 8th Amendment, and not the police/investigative body that would be doing the torture? Because it certainly seems that punishment for suspicion of a crime falls under "penalties for crimes".

 

[theprestige]

Do you think that only the court is bound by the 8th Amendment, and not the police/investigative body that would be doing the torture? Because it certainly seems that punishment for suspicion of a crime falls under "penalties for crimes".

I do not think only the court is bound. Being an enemy belligerent is not a crime. Interrogation to obtain intelligence is not punishment.

Torture (and even "torture") in interrogation is generally a bad idea, and there are many good reasons why it should almost never be used. But I agree with Scalia that the 8th Amendment as written is simply not one of them.

If we want to prohibit torture at Constitutional level, it does not suffice to insist on a perverse interpretation of the 8th Amendment. We must address the limits of the Executive's war powers directly.

I believe that the Constitution can address any issue we as a nation wish it to address. But I also believe that the handful of clauses written so far do not already magically address every issue we might ever wish to debate. Let alone magically resolve every possible issue. Sometimes interpreting the existing text is not sufficient, and we'll need to write something new. Limits on interrogation in warfare is one of those times.

 

[newyorkguy]

If there was one thing that distinguished the U.S. (and many other western nations) it was that we don't use torture. It's against what we believe, we signed the Geneva Convention and we have laws against it. So essentially Scalia was suggesting -- a Supreme Court judge no less -- that it's sometimes okay for the state to break the law. As the BBC interviewer said, that is a dangerous idea. For a high court judge to do that, before the fact. Scalia didn't get it? I think he did. I think he had an agenda.

What surprised me about Scalia was, what judge gave interviews like this? He seemed to like publicity, notoriety. Most Americans -- not every single one, but most -- would agree, it's wrong to execute an innocent person, it's wrong to use torture. But Scalia went out of his way to tell people, "No that's okay." Why did he do that? He wasn't a right wing politician he was a judge. With the torture issue, what if a torture case had come before the Supreme Court, Scalia had already talked publicly about how he would rule. Few other judges do that.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What surprised me about Scalia was, what judge gave interviews like this? He seemed to like publicity, notoriety. Most Americans -- not every single one, but most -- would agree, it's wrong to execute an innocent person, it's wrong to use torture. But Scalia went out of his way to tell people, "No that's okay." Why did he do that? He wasn't a right wing politician he was a judge. With the torture issue, what if a torture case had come before the Supreme Court, Scalia had already talked publicly about how he would rule. Few other judges do that.

In relation to that, there was also that gratuitously sarcastic remark on a case where he justified the death penalty by referring to the alleged acts (strangling a little girl with her panties, as I recall) of a convict whose conviction later turned out to be wrongful. That really turned my stomach.

 

[wareyin]

I do not think only the court is bound. Being an enemy belligerent is not a crime. Interrogation to obtain intelligence is not punishment.

Torture (and even "torture") in interrogation is generally a bad idea, and there are many good reasons why it should almost never be used. But I agree with Scalia that the 8th Amendment as written is simply not one of them.

If we want to prohibit torture at Constitutional level, it does not suffice to insist on a perverse interpretation of the 8th Amendment. We must address the limits of the Executive's war powers directly.

I believe that the Constitution can address any issue we as a nation wish it to address. But I also believe that the handful of clauses written so far do not already magically address every issue we might ever wish to debate. Let alone magically resolve every possible issue. Sometimes interpreting the existing text is not sufficient, and we'll need to write something new. Limits on interrogation in warfare is one of those times.

Scalia's comments were not limited to "enemy belligerents", or enemy combatants. American citizens could be tortured under his scenario. Torturing someone before a trial has determined guilt is still punishment, and, contrary to Scalia's assertion*, the length of time this punishment goes on does not matter for "cruel and unusual punishment".




*Scalia's words, ellipsis in the original: "To begin with, the constitution refers to cruel and unusual punishment, it is referring to punishment on indefinitely..."

 

[sunmaster14]

If there was one thing that distinguished the U.S. (and many other western nations) it was that we don't use torture. It's against what we believe, we signed the Geneva Convention and we have laws against it. So essentially Scalia was suggesting -- a Supreme Court judge no less -- that it's sometimes okay for the state to break the law. As the BBC interviewer said, that is a dangerous idea. For a high court judge to do that, before the fact. Scalia didn't get it? I think he did. I think he had an agenda.

That's a rather odd thing to say, given that there are many more important things which distinguish free Western countries from unfree countries, and, in any case, we and many Western countries have used torture quite liberally throughout our histories. We and the British used torture during WWII. We and the French used torture in Vietnam. The French used torture in the Algerian civil war. Our police departments routinely use torture. Torture in movies is applauded and cheered by audiences. Basically, most people are ok with torturing evil people to extract information that could save innocent lives.

Oh, and by the way, torture is not prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. It is prohibited by the Convention Against Torture, which didn't come into effect until 1987.

What surprised me about Scalia was, what judge gave interviews like this?

Ummm. Most of them actually. Stephen Breyer has talked about looking to international law to inform constitutional interpretation. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has talked extensively about her leftist views. Sonia Sotomayor has talked about bringing the perspective of historically oppressed minorities to the Supreme Court.

He seemed to like publicity, notoriety. Most Americans -- not every single one, but most -- would agree, it's wrong to execute an innocent person, it's wrong to use torture. But Scalia went out of his way to tell people, "No that's okay." Why did he do that? He wasn't a right wing politician he was a judge. With the torture issue, what if a torture case had come before the Supreme Court, Scalia had already talked publicly about how he would rule. Few other judges do that.

He actually is talking about how he has already ruled. He has written extensively in his opinions about his thoughts on such issues in the relevant cases. Do you object to judges writing lengthy and detailed opinions? Or explaining them in greater detail later, when asked specific questions about them?

 

[sunmaster14]

Scalia's comments were not limited to "enemy belligerents", or enemy combatants. American citizens could be tortured under his scenario. Torturing someone before a trial has determined guilt is still punishment, and, contrary to Scalia's assertion*, the length of time this punishment goes on does not matter for "cruel and unusual punishment".




*Scalia's words, ellipsis in the original: "To begin with, the constitution refers to cruel and unusual punishment, it is referring to punishment on indefinitely..."

Is shooting a criminal who is trying to escape or posing a threat to a police officer or an innocent civilian considered punishment? How would you distinguish the use of force to stop a criminal from hurting people from the use of force to stop a captured terrorist from withholding information that could save innocent people?

 

[wareyin]

Is shooting a criminal who is trying to escape or posing a threat to a police officer or an innocent civilian considered punishment? How would you distinguish the use of force to stop a criminal from hurting people from the use of force to stop a captured terrorist from withholding information that could save innocent people?

It depends on the situation, but a key difference is the highlighted word. Once you are in police custody, what they are doing becomes punishment.

eta: Also, the whole bit about torturing out information that could save innocent people is a bad movie plot, not real life.

 

[sunmaster14]

It depends on the situation, but a key difference is the highlighted word. Once you are in police custody, what they are doing becomes punishment.

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. If a prisoner is not revealing important information that could save innocent lives then he is not being fully compliant, is he? Seems worse to me than trying to escape, or flinging poo around the cell, or even trying to attack the guards.

eta: Also, the whole bit about torturing out information that could save innocent people is a bad movie plot, not real life.

Well, a real-life situation just happened in Belgium a few weeks ago. The Belgian police caught a terrorist who knew about the plot to set off bombs at the airport and a subway station, and if the police had interrogated him properly (with torture, if necessary), the plot may well have been interrupted.

 

[wareyin]

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. If a prisoner is not revealing important information that could save innocent lives then he is not being fully compliant, is he? Seems worse to me than trying to escape, or flinging poo around the cell, or even trying to attack the guards.

That does not seem arbitrary to me. 'Not revealing important information' is likely a characteristic that every person behind bars fits, unless they gave a full confession.

Well, a real-life situation just happened in Belgium a few weeks ago. The Belgian police caught a terrorist who knew about the plot to set off bombs at the airport and a subway station, and if the police had interrogated him properly (with torture, if necessary), the plot may well have been interrupted.

If, may. These are not words that apply when one is trying to prove one's case by using real life situations.

 

[sunmaster14]

That does not seem arbitrary to me. 'Not revealing important information' is likely a characteristic that every person behind bars fits, unless they gave a full confession.

Suppose that there is a button that the prisoner has access to. If he refuses to press that button, 31 innocent people die and hundreds of others are seriously wounded. Can the police use force to make him press that button? If not, suppose that pressing the button causes the death of 31 innocent people, etc. Can the police use force to prevent him from pressing that button?

I claim that there is no real moral distinction between pressing a button that kills people and refusing to press a button that saves people, assuming that pressing the button for the prisoner is as simple and painless as, well, pressing a button.

I also claim that there is no real moral distinction between pressing a button and giving up information in your possession.

If, may. These are not words that apply when one is trying to prove one's case by using real life situations.

Sure they do. Are you familiar with the concept of expectation value? If there is a 20% chance of saving 30 lives, then that's equivalent to saving 6 lives, on average. That's worth doing. I don't think there's any doubt that there was a significant probability of averting the attacks in Belgium if the prisoner had been interrogated aggressively. Was it 100%? Of course not. Was it 0%? No. I think most people would say that it was at least in the tens of percent range. That amounts to real lives, on average.

 

[wareyin]

Suppose that there is a button that the prisoner has access to. If he refuses to press that button, 31 innocent people die and hundreds of others are seriously wounded. Can the police use force to make him press that button? If not, suppose that pressing the button causes the death of 31 innocent people, etc. Can the police use force to prevent him from pressing that button?

I claim that there is no real moral distinction between pressing a button that kills people and refusing to press a button that saves people, assuming that pressing the button for the prisoner is as simple and painless as, well, pressing a button.

I also claim that there is no real moral distinction between pressing a button and giving up information in your possession.

Your hypothetical assumes that we are certain that the suspect has the information that can stop those 31 deaths. The real world is far more uncertain. I'm not OK with violating US and international laws for a possibility. Even if it were certain that the suspect had the information, and it were certain that getting that information would save lives, torturing that person is legally and morally wrong.

Sure they do. Are you familiar with the concept of expectation value? If there is a 20% chance of saving 30 lives, then that's equivalent to saving 6 lives, on average. That's worth doing. I don't think there's any doubt that there was a significant probability of averting the attacks in Belgium if the prisoner had been interrogated aggressively. Was it 100%? Of course not. Was it 0%? No. I think most people would say that it was at least in the tens of percent range. That amounts to real lives, on average.

Most people who have studied torture for interrogation have pointed out that it does not get reliable information. Most people who get their information on torture from Jack Bauer may think it would save real lives on average, but they are wrong.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Suppose that there is a button that the prisoner has access to. If he refuses to press that button, 31 innocent people die and hundreds of others are seriously wounded. Can the police use force to make him press that button? If not, suppose that pressing the button causes the death of 31 innocent people, etc. Can the police use force to prevent him from pressing that button?

I claim that there is no real moral distinction between pressing a button that kills people and refusing to press a button that saves people, assuming that pressing the button for the prisoner is as simple and painless as, well, pressing a button.

I also claim that there is no real moral distinction between pressing a button and giving up information in your possession.



Sure they do. Are you familiar with the concept of expectation value? If there is a 20% chance of saving 30 lives, then that's equivalent to saving 6 lives, on average. That's worth doing. I don't think there's any doubt that there was a significant probability of averting the attacks in Belgium if the prisoner had been interrogated aggressively. Was it 100%? Of course not. Was it 0%? No. I think most people would say that it was at least in the tens of percent range. That amounts to real lives, on average.

The 31 people die. There is no acceptable benefit worth the cost of infringing on the rights of an individual.

 

[The Big Dog]

The 31 people die. There is no acceptable benefit worth the cost of infringing on the rights of an individual.

Except, ya know, the 31 individuals whose right to life were just terminated.

 

[sunmaster14]

The 31 people die. There is no acceptable benefit worth the cost of infringing on the rights of an individual.

We infringe on people's rights all the time for breaking the law. Don't you think putting a person in jail infringes his rights?

 

[sunmaster14]

Your hypothetical assumes that we are certain that the suspect has the information that can stop those 31 deaths. The real world is far more uncertain. I'm not OK with violating US and international laws for a possibility. Even if it were certain that the suspect had the information, and it were certain that getting that information would save lives, torturing that person is legally and morally wrong.

Well, it is legally wrong. Whether it is morally wrong depends on circumstances. I think it's rare that it would be morally correct to torture somebody, but I think those situations will arise more and more in the future as the use of WMDs by terrorists becomes more realistic.

Most people who have studied torture for interrogation have pointed out that it does not get reliable information. Most people who get their information on torture from Jack Bauer may think it would save real lives on average, but they are wrong.

It's mostly wishful thinking on the part of torture opponents. There is no real science behind such studies because of the impossibility of doing real testing. Common sense of course tells us that torture works. Pretty obvious really. It would work on me certainly.