[Winstonm]

Comments by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia to the BBC

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

Torture is not banned by the Constitution, therefore the U.S. Constitution has no moral authority - so what's the point, then?

Quote

"We don't pretend to be some Western Mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world," Scalia told a BBC interviewer Tuesday, defending narrow interpretation of the reach the US Constitution gives the nine justices on the country's high court.

Maybe it is just me, but this sounds totally biased and prejudiced against Muslims and if in court I would hope my attorney would ask this judge to recuse himself from any delibertions on this issue.

Quote

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

Let me see if I can grasp this infinite logic. The 8th Amendment prohibits locking someone away as punishment, but it's O.K. to lock someone away for no reason?
Whatever happened to the rule of law?

Quote

In the BBC interview, which aired on Radio 4's Law in Action, Scalia suggested that it would be inappropriate for the court to deliberately outlaw certain tactics, such as waterboarding. (The Bush administration recently acknowledged using the simulated drowning procedure at least three times on terror detainees.) Scalia said tactics critics have described as torture could be usable in so-called "ticking time bomb" scenarios or even when such a pressing deadline does not exist.

A U.S. Supreme Court Justice openly stating that torture is O.K.

Something has gone very, very wrong with America - very wrong.

[pclayton]

Winston, all I can say is that you are going to have a lot of time on your hands come next January.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

A U.S. Supreme Court Justice openly stating that torture is O.K.

Something has gone very, very wrong with America - very wrong.

We will be out of the torture business next year for sure, but Scalia will still be on the court. His foolish comments are getting wide distribution in the Muslim world.

[Winstonm]

The question, I believe, is where are we going as a country? What are we trying to accomplish? What type of future are we trying to build for our progeny?

It seems the only legacy we are working toward is endless fear and endless war - and any principle that stands in the way of those goals is being trampled in the name of national security.

Which is odd, in that it seems the definition of real national security should be freedom from fear and freedom from the threat of endless war.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." WarGames 1983

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

Comments by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia to the BBC

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

Torture is not banned by the Constitution, therefore the U.S. Constitution has no moral authority - so what's the point, then?

he said "torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution"... if you disagree, why? and he didn't say the constitution has no moral authority, he said "the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations"

Quote

Quote

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

Let me see if I can grasp this infinite logic. The 8th Amendment prohibits locking someone away as punishment, but it's O.K. to lock someone away for no reason?
Whatever happened to the rule of law?

no, that isn't what he said either, winston... he's saying the 8th applies to crimes committed here but not necessarily to "foreign subjects detained overseas."

it's ok to be against what somebody says, and you might even be right

passedout said:

We will be out of the torture business next year for sure, but Scalia will still be on the court. His foolish comments are getting wide distribution in the Muslim world.

i think your faith in the dems is touching... and maybe a little naive

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

i think your faith in the dems is touching... and maybe a little naive

As a conservative, I have little faith in the democrats (or republicans) in general. However, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all decent people who have spoken out against torture. That is in great contrast to what we have in the white house today.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Feb 13 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

A U.S. Supreme Court Justice openly stating that torture is O.K.

Something has gone very, very wrong with America - very wrong.

We will be out of the torture business next year for sure, but Scalia will still be on the court. His foolish comments are getting wide distribution in the Muslim world.

That is entirely the point. Just another meat-puppet doing the bidding of those that pull his strings.....ya gotta stir the pot if ya wanna smell what the Dick is cookin'!

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

Torture is not banned by the Constitution, therefore the U.S. Constitution has no moral authority - so what's the point, then?

I find this statement to be so offensive as to be beyond belief that it was uttered by an "educated" person.

If he had said;

"Torture is banned by the constitution, and despite lacking legal authority, the U.S. stands for moral principles that ensure the freedom and liberty of individuals. We will stand against these immoral acts and resist them at every turn. We are not torturers nor will we ever condone torture, in any form. It is an immoral and repugnant act that only breeds more terror."

I would applaud his resolve and second his optimism.

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

Comments by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia to the BBC

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

Torture is not banned by the Constitution, therefore the U.S. Constitution has no moral authority - so what's the point, then?

he said "torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution"... if you disagree, why? and he didn't say the constitution has no moral authority, he said "the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations"

Quote

Quote

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

Let me see if I can grasp this infinite logic. The 8th Amendment prohibits locking someone away as punishment, but it's O.K. to lock someone away for no reason?
Whatever happened to the rule of law?

no, that isn't what he said either, winston... he's saying the 8th applies to crimes committed here but not necessarily to "foreign subjects detained overseas."

it's ok to be against what somebody says, and you might even be right

passedout said:

We will be out of the torture business next year for sure, but Scalia will still be on the court. His foolish comments are getting wide distribution in the Muslim world.

i think your faith in the dems is touching... and maybe a little naive

Because nothing about the Amendments except maybe the 3rd talks about who's soil it's taking place on. Only under whose jurisdiction it's under.

For example, if a cop stops me for suspicious behavior in Niagara, New York, puts me in his car and drives me over the bridge to Canada, and procedes to torture me until I confess, do you think it should be allowed in an American court? How about San Diego and Mexico?

I think Scalia's idea as listed here is ridiculous. Now, I haven't read what he actually said, so if he said that the persons in questions were not American citizens, or that they were actually under Cuban control, that would be different. But as listed I can't imagine that there's a leg to stand on.

[kenberg]

I only heard part of the Scalia argument on what the Constitution allows or prohibits. On the subject of unlimited detention the argument went as follows: In certain situations, a judge can compel testimony from a witness. If the witness refuses to testify, the witness can be sent to jail for an indeterminate length of time. Punishment for an indefinite length of time might be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment, but the this is different. The witness is able to end the jailing at any time by testifying as ordered. That's my understanding of the argument at any rate. Obviously, when applied to captives who are suspected of knowing something, this can put a prisoner who actually has no information to offer in a difficult situation.

[Al_U_Card]

When the nit that the nit-pickers are picking is you, then it becomes relevent and serious. This is one reason why Senator McCain is against torture....he endured it.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Feb 13 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

I only heard part of the Scalia argument on what the Constitution allows or prohibits. On the subject of unlimited detention the argument went as follows: In certain situations, a judge can compel testimony from a witness. If the witness refuses to testify, the witness can be sent to jail for an indeterminate length of time. Punishment for an indefinite length of time might be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment, but the this is different. The witness is able to end the jailing at any time by testifying as ordered. That's my understanding of the argument at any rate. Obviously, when applied to captives who are suspected of knowing something, this can put a prisoner who actually has no information to offer in a difficult situation.

I can't say from personal experience, but it most likely is difficult to plead the 5th Amendment when water is being poured down your throat.

I think it is perfectly clear what this Justice was saying - that the rule of law does not apply to those suspected of being terrorists.

[mike777]

Wiretapping law:
1) Barak voted no.
2) Hillary voted absent
3) McCain voted yes.

I think that gives every one a clear choice of options to vote for in this election.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2008, 10:37 PM, said:

Comments by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia to the BBC

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

Torture is not banned by the Constitution, therefore the U.S. Constitution has no moral authority - so what's the point, then?

he said "torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution"... if you disagree, why? and he didn't say the constitution has no moral authority, he said "the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations"

Quote

Quote

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

Let me see if I can grasp this infinite logic. The 8th Amendment prohibits locking someone away as punishment, but it's O.K. to lock someone away for no reason?
Whatever happened to the rule of law?

no, that isn't what he said either, winston... he's saying the 8th applies to crimes committed here but not necessarily to "foreign subjects detained overseas."

it's ok to be against what somebody says, and you might even be right

passedout said:

We will be out of the torture business next year for sure, but Scalia will still be on the court. His foolish comments are getting wide distribution in the Muslim world.

i think your faith in the dems is touching... and maybe a little naive

Let me address all of these with one comment. The U.S. military is under civilian control. The C.I.A. is part of the executive branch. The U.S. Constitution is the civilian authority.

Even the Commander-in-Chief, being a civilian, is bound by the civilian authority of the Constitution - regardless of where a illegality occurs, it cannot be approved or ordered by the Commander-in-Chief as he does not have civilian authority greater than the Constitution - as an agent for the government, he is also restricted by the restraints on government actions specified by the Constitution.

An action by the C.I.A. anywhere in the world is an action of the executive branch.
An action anywhere in the world by the military is a civilian action as the military is under civilian control and cannot act on its own.

It can then be argued that any government sanctioned actions, whether in the United States or outside of its boundaries, is still subject to the civilian authority inherent in the U.S. Constitution as all actions authorized are civilian based.

It is not the rights of detainess, but the restrictions on civilian authority and governmental authority that defines the limits of permissable actions.

Also, any claim of "war powers" should be considered without merit, as Congress has not made a declaration of war. There can be no "war powers" without a legal war.

[Winstonm]

Undo.

Sorry, but I have to answer this specifically, Jimmy.

Quote

no, that isn't what he said either, winston... he's saying the 8th applies to crimes committed here but not necessarily to "foreign subjects detained overseas."

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

There are two distinct statements here. The first being it was "extraordinary" to suggest the 8th Amendment applied to foreign subjects overseas.

The second statement says the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and inhuman punishment for c-r-i-m-e-s, but for s-u-s-p-e-c-t-e-d terrorists it is totally fine. Also notice in this second statement there is no mention of location - he seems he thinks this practice is fine here in the U.S., as well.

Let me add to refute any attempt to state the statements are joined: in the first half, he states that the 8th Amendment does not apply overseas to foreigners, yet in the second statement he plainly states that the 8th Amendment "would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime," - it cannot be both ways.

The statements are seperate.

I reiterate my assertion:

Let me see if I can grasp this infinite logic. The 8th Amendment prohibits locking someone away as punishment, but it's O.K. to lock someone away for no reason?
Whatever happened to the rule of law?

[mike777]

Winston we have discussed this before, Presidents throughout history have ignored Supreme Court rulings. Hate it, call it fascist, or whatever but I think it is naive to think that the Supreme Court rules and the country, Congress or Executive branch follows in lockstep. This is very often the issue when it comes to "national security"

I just call it part of the ongoing tension/war between the branches of our government and that is ok..not perfect but ok.

At least we can throw the guy/gal out in 4 years.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Feb 13 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

i think your faith in the dems is touching... and maybe a little naive

As a conservative, I have little faith in the democrats (or republicans) in general. However, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all decent people who have spoken out against torture. That is in great contrast to what we have in the white house today.

I agree - and go even futher to say there is no opposition party any longer.

One party, different spin.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I just call it part of the ongoing tension/war between the branches of our government and that is ok..not perfect but ok

I wish there were tension and conflicts within the branches - and that is the concern I have - an absence of the conflicts that are at the heart of checks and balances.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

Quote

I just call it part of the ongoing tension/war between the branches of our government and that is ok..not perfect but ok

I wish there were tension and conflicts within the branches - and that is the concern I have - an absence of the conflicts that are at the heart of checks and balances.

If you are refering to the vote on Iraq or Vietnam, ya I agree. SHHHsss two idiot votes on war in my short lifetime.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2008, 07:37 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 13 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

i think your faith in the dems is touching... and maybe a little naive

As a conservative, I have little faith in the democrats (or republicans) in general. However, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all decent people who have spoken out against torture. That is in great contrast to what we have in the white house today.

I agree - and go even futher to say there is no opposition party any longer.

One party, different spin.

NO?

What about my post on wiretapping?

It looks like Congress is for wiretapping.

Of course I guess many Democrats did go along with Bush and vote yes
but it seems the Pres. candidates strongly differ....

btw I like the absent vote......I guess she did not care or had more important things to do?