Scalia: "Torture is Not Necessarily the Same as Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

[ZENmud]

well, hi :-)

I'm curious what 'insinuendo' came out from Weyerhauser, and I'm satisfied that I am not the original genius that first used it... but I bet Twain thought about it also... long before our pappies were born...

As far as the auto-generation of classic REP questions, such as we've heard since January 22, 2001, I ask politely 'what's the rhetorical point you wish to score?', which response from you could be coupled to this question:'can you EVER remember any Democrat, after WTC-1993, blaming PAPA Bush, while asking "okay what would GEORGIE-DADDY do?'

It's the intellectual equivalent of digging your elbow in my ribs, in the bar, and loudly asking/stating: "you really DIDN'T fu** that fat bimbo, did you?"

That tragedy HAPPENED in the Green Zone. I never saw any story from the US media coverage that I do channel into, informing the world that "the Green Zone is vulnerable". I have a friend working w/ an NGO, in Jordan, and if and when she has to go into the 'bastion of American values' to do contract negotiation, man I do NOT want to see her lost needlessly.

Sadly you didn't enjoy the challenge of thinking, about what goal I'd want by RECEIVING a REP president and an overwhelmingly-DEM Congress... was it that obvious, or too devious?

"You really do wish the best for America, don't you?"

With all my heart: 2000 days skiing its mountains, 900 days rafting its western (and 1 (day) in Maine) rivers, 200 days camping/hiking high COLO valleys give me over 8.5 out of 32 adult years in the midst of the country's most beautiful nature.

Perhaps that's why I get rather disgusted when I see with my own eyes how little those who say they 'love it' want to preserve it. Most appear to want to 'have it unchanged so we can continue to extract the sh/t out of it...'(defining 'Extract' in the broadest sense possible.

I'm a beer-on-tap guy, so the fridge usually has Rioja-rosé and Côte de Ventoux rosé, but the BBQ on the lake shore is where it's at, McB...

(if I could remember the name (hopefully not yours!) of the family from Virginia, rich guy, R.E. developer, who our company took on a private overnight raft excursion (son home from college, with a friend, and a golf-ball-sized hunk of 'opiyum'), I'd not reveal it here... heh heh)

((Statute on limitations wayyy over by now...))

If you're bored, spend a little time searching for EN-language news about Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf

http://news.google.com/news/url...

Why????

Because everything being done to her by her own right-wing party, is taken straight out of the nearly-Fascist gamebook that Bush-Rove invented.
(yup...)

and here's a just for fun; it's in french, but check out the photos of a couple of young, heroic Swiss men, that saved maybe 20-200 people from adding into 60car crash in fog by our lake...
http://www.lematin.ch/fr/actu/suisse/ils-ont-...

ZENhaveAweekend

[mdbuilder]

ZENmud wrote:

well, hi :-)
I'm curious what 'insinuendo' came out from Weyerhauser, and I'm satisfied that I am not the original genius that first used it... but I bet Twain thought about it also... long before our pappies were born...
As far as the auto-generation of classic REP questions, such as we've heard since January 22, 2001, I ask politely 'what's the rhetorical point you wish to score?', which response from you could be coupled to this question:'can you EVER remember any Democrat, after WTC-1993, blaming PAPA Bush, while asking "okay what would GEORGIE-DADDY do?'
It's the intellectual equivalent of digging your elbow in my ribs, in the bar, and loudly asking/stating: "you really DIDN'T fu** that fat bimbo, did you?"
That tragedy HAPPENED in the Green Zone. I never saw any story from the US media coverage that I do channel into, informing the world that "the Green Zone is vulnerable". I have a friend working w/ an NGO, in Jordan, and if and when she has to go into the 'bastion of American values' to do contract negotiation, man I do NOT want to see her lost needlessly.
Sadly you didn't enjoy the challenge of thinking, about what goal I'd want by RECEIVING a REP president and an overwhelmingly-DEM Congress... was it that obvious, or too devious?
"You really do wish the best for America, don't you?"
With all my heart: 2000 days skiing its mountains, 900 days rafting its western (and 1 (day) in Maine) rivers, 200 days camping/hiking high COLO valleys give me over 8.5 out of 32 adult years in the midst of the country's most beautiful nature.
Perhaps that's why I get rather disgusted when I see with my own eyes how little those who say they 'love it' want to preserve it. Most appear to want to 'have it unchanged so we can continue to extract the sh/t out of it...'(defining 'Extract' in the broadest sense possible.
I'm a beer-on-tap guy, so the fridge usually has Rioja-rosé and Côte de Ventoux rosé, but the BBQ on the lake shore is where it's at, McB...
(if I could remember the name (hopefully not yours!) of the family from Virginia, rich guy, R.E. developer, who our company took on a private overnight raft excursion (son home from college, with a friend, and a golf-ball-sized hunk of 'opiyum'), I'd not reveal it here... heh heh)
((Statute on limitations wayyy over by now...))
ZENhaveAweekend

Hope your day is as glorious as mine, cloudless, deep blue sky, mild breeze and flight after flight of boisterous snow geese heading north. Beautiful.
In the lead-up to the closure, Weyco and the machinist union, I.A.M., were negotiating severance packages for vested employees. Weyco, naturally, wanted lower payouts than originally offered contending they had received statements from "anonymous" union members contending
there was intentional "slow downs" once they had learned of the impending closure. Since they refused identification I characterized the statements as "insinuendos not worthy of mention". We got the severance packages but lost our jobs.
My opinion regarding a REP Pres. and DEM. congress is that of endless vetoes and subsequent override sessions. Very bad for the country. Very little would get accomplished. Tell me why you suggested that scenario.
Your whole BBQ by the lake sounds relaxing, provided there's privacy or at least not a bunch of strangers around. Celebrated my birthday yesterday (Fri.) with a 'surprise' BBQ. Rib-eye and Johnny Walker black, good friends and family. The best of life, except for the 'stiff' head this morning.
Sounds like Eveline isn't living up to expectations.
It's refreshing to see people do the right thing. Hero's. Looks like a helluva wreck. Was it near you're "chateau"? What lake?
Another question: is there a Muslim population near you and if so what has it been like for you in that atmosphere?

[mdbuilder]

Good day,

Hope your day is as glorious as mine, cloudless, deep blue sky, mild breeze and flight after flight of boisterous snow geese heading north. Beautiful.
In the lead-up to the closure, Weyco and the machinist union, I.A.M., were negotiating severance packages for vested employees. Weyco, naturally, wanted lower payouts than originally offered contending they had received statements from "anonymous" union members contending
there was intentional "slow downs" once they had learned of the impending closure. Since they refused identification I characterized the statements as "insinuendos not worthy of mention". We got the severance packages but lost our jobs.
My opinion regarding a REP Pres. and DEM. congress is that of endless vetoes and subsequent override sessions. Very bad for the country. Very little would get accomplished. Tell me why you suggested that scenario.
Your whole BBQ by the lake sounds relaxing, provided there's privacy or at least not a bunch of strangers around. Celebrated my birthday yesterday (Fri.) with a 'surprise' BBQ. Rib-eye and Johnny Walker black, good friends and family. The best of life, except for the 'stiff' head this morning.
Sounds like Eveline isn't living up to expectations.
It's refreshing to see people do the right thing. Hero's. Looks like a helluva pile-up. Was it near you're "chateau"? What lake?
Another question: is there a Muslim population near you and if so what has it been like for you in that atmosphere?

[ZENmud]

not only 'a Muslim population', but many of my friends are Muslim, and a film-partner (prospectively speaking) is an Israeli who is not proud of his gov't.

My train home leaves in 20min so we have to continue this another time, but I'll get back to it before Thursday...

ZENbusy4aChange

[Blackvested]

Saying that torture is not punishment is admitting that torture can be committed against completely innocent people. There's no getting around that. He's evil, stupid, or both.

[Blackvested]

Saying that torture is not punishment is admitting that torture can be committed against completely innocent people. There's no getting around that. He's evil, stupid, or both.

[Originalist]

NYWILL wrote:

Scalia: "Torture is Not Necessarily the Same as Cruel and Unusual Punishment"
WHO PUT THIS FOOL ON THE COURT?

Whoever put him on did a great service to America.

Is it not obvious to you fools that treatment while in detention not for crime but as an unlawful enemy copmbatant is NOT "cruel and unusual punishment" since it isn't punishment at all.

Punishment means the sentance for a conviction of a crime as used in the 8th Amendment.

Maybe you can sanction me for torturing somone under some theory of law, but it isn't cruel and unusual punishment since it isn't punishment at all.

If you don't get that your too dim to be discussing the US Constitution anyway.

[tom]

Originalist wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoever put him on did a great service to America.
Is it not obvious to you fools that treatment while in detention not for crime but as an unlawful enemy copmbatant is NOT "cruel and unusual punishment" since it isn't punishment at all.
Punishment means the sentance for a conviction of a crime as used in the 8th Amendment.
Maybe you can sanction me for torturing somone under some theory of law, but it isn't cruel and unusual punishment since it isn't punishment at all.
If you don't get that your too dim to be discussing the US Constitution anyway.

There comes a point when defining, segregating, and isolating ideas loses meaning because the process has shut the door on the thought. Torturing people, unless you somehow get off on sadism or have retreated to mindlessness, shouldn't be something civilized people do. While that exonerates Scalia, the rest of us still have a responsibility.

[ZENmud]

i'd like to be in the court room in which your losing argument did so...

Sad also you don't remember who 'granted' us with Scalia's bilgewater-porting subservience to his ideological masters...

I'm going to give you a laptop, and a plane ticket to the 'Taliban's Jail', and ask them nicely to treat you like a pampered Guantanamo 'vacitioning beach-loving unlawful combatant'...

... then I'll enjoy your articles telling me that being 10,000 km from your loved ones, your baby daughter or new hot GF or whatever, is not a punishment.

"Unlawful combatant" was a US-Bush-Neocon 'slogan' that took months to determine, as its coinage would have to be 'legally supported'.

It wasn't Codified by US Mil. Justice until 2006.

What really hurts this American, who studied International Law in Cambridge, UK, in 1995, is how easily people like you give up the fight that true conservatives fought for some 61 years ago (John J McCloy, amongst others like the Dulles brothers).

And more scarily so, is how easily the dirtier parts of the world are going to adapt, saying "If the United States can turn its back on ILaw, and commence torturing our brothers and sisters, than we can do it also, amongst ourselves and AGAINST AMERICAN OCCUPIERS'.

So proudly do you appear ready to hand them your key... I'd reread the myth of 'Pandora's Box' before you try taking your logic any further.

ZENjd

Originalist wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoever put him on did a great service to America.
Is it not obvious to you fools that treatment while in detention not for crime but as an unlawful enemy copmbatant is NOT "cruel and unusual punishment" since it isn't punishment at all.
Punishment means the sentance for a conviction of a crime as used in the 8th Amendment.
Maybe you can sanction me for torturing somone under some theory of law, but it isn't cruel and unusual punishment since it isn't punishment at all.
If you don't get that your too dim to be discussing the US Constitution anyway.

[Austin Nedved]

Torturing someone who is sitting on vital information crucial to public safety (for example, the location of a bomb) is not cruel and unusual 'punishment'. You might argue that the torturer would be punishing the terrorist for not giving the information or for not cooperating. They are inflicting pain (cruel and unusual punishment) for not telling them what they need to know. But if a police officer sprayed pepper spray in someone's face in order to inflict pain to the point where they could not attack him or someone else anymore, would you say he was 'punishing' the criminal for attacking him? During a high-speed chase, when police shout over a blow horn 'this is your final warning. Pull over or you will be forced from the road" and then force the driver into a ditch where his car flips at high speeds, which will inevitably result in the driver being seriously injured, would you say that the police were punishing him for not cooperating?

No. They were acting in the defense of themselves or of others. When someones actions or inactions present a clear and present danger to themselves or society, and due to their (the criminal's) actions or negligence, force is required to eliminate that threat, force may be used, even if it would not be an acceptable post-conviction punishment for their crime.

Remember, you can be just as guilty of murder through negligence as through actual actions. If a parent stands by as their child is being killed, under the law, they are as guilty as the murderer. If you are a co-conspirator in a bombing and are sitting on information, such as the location of the bomb, you may as well have the remote detonator in your hand.

[Gabe]

Austin Nedved wrote:

Torturing someone who is sitting on vital information crucial to public safety (for example, the location of a bomb) is not cruel and unusual 'punishment'. You might argue that the torturer would be punishing the terrorist for not giving the information or for not cooperating. They are inflicting pain (cruel and unusual punishment) for not telling them what they need to know. But if a police officer sprayed pepper spray in someone's face in order to inflict pain to the point where they could not attack him or someone else anymore, would you say he was 'punishing' the criminal for attacking him? During a high-speed chase, when police shout over a blow horn 'this is your final warning. Pull over or you will be forced from the road" and then force the driver into a ditch where his car flips at high speeds, which will inevitably result in the driver being seriously injured, would you say that the police were punishing him for not cooperating?
No. They were acting in the defense of themselves or of others. When someones actions or inactions present a clear and present danger to themselves or society, and due to their (the criminal's) actions or negligence, force is required to eliminate that threat, force may be used, even if it would not be an acceptable post-conviction punishment for their crime.
Remember, you can be just as guilty of murder through negligence as through actual actions. If a parent stands by as their child is being killed, under the law, they are as guilty as the murderer. If you are a co-conspirator in a bombing and are sitting on information, such as the location of the bomb, you may as well have
the remote detonator in your hand.

So only in certain situations you can torture people? Only when they have information you desperately need in a life or death situation. That is the basic argument. Of course torture is used for more than this. Moreover how do you know someone has that information? If they don't you're just torturing an innocent person. You just torture them til they tell you what you want to hear and the whole thing would be counterproductive. As a society you either have to be for something like this or against it. You can't be against cruel and unusual punishment, unless it suits you.

[ZENmud]

I am not aware whether 'A.N.' is responding to the mass of posts, or to my own (from weeks or months ago...). So he or she should not take too personally any comment I've made (unless otherwise notified)!)

****

quoting A.N.:
"Torturing someone who is sitting on vital information crucial to public safety (for example, the location of a bomb) is not cruel and unusual 'punishment'."

zen 1: you wasted a lot of words:
'torturing someone IS TORTURING SOMEONE' would do me better.

zen 1a: if you are seen TORTURING someone who may be aware of the location of a bomb (your slim hypothetical doesn't offer the opportunity to discern whether the INTENT of the person You would like tortured was to KILL, or to inform the State Authorities of someone else's INTENT TO KILL), do you believe future 'involved-but-repentant' people may come forward and inform about BOMBS? Just curious...

A.N. TWO: "You might argue that the torturer would be punishing the terrorist for not giving the information or for not cooperating. They are inflicting pain (cruel and unusual punishment) for not telling them what they need to know."

zen 2: I note an inconsistency that needs clarification: A.N. said in his (or her) first phrase that torturing "is not cruel and unusual 'punishment'." A.N. then said "They are inflicting pain (cruel and unusual punishment)"
THUS the only logical extraction is that TORTURE does not equal 'inflicting pain', which is by definition (of MANY TREATIES) not TRUE.

A.N. THREE:
"But if a police officer sprayed pepper spray in someone's face in order to inflict pain to the point where they could not attack him or someone else anymore, would you say he was 'punishing' the criminal for attacking him?"

zen 3: I would say he or she was a SADIST, given your parameters.
I would offer a better analogy, by saying:
"he (or she) was a State Actor (a legal term), trained in the use of various control techniques to render Dangerous Situations less so."
(I note that Conservatives like to self-authorize themselves to put words in 'my'(or anyone's) mouth, and then argue against things I never said)
Ad infinitum.... A.N. makes the unlikely point (I am admitting being as presumptuous as were A.N's offerings) that "my government (and shows like NCIS, etc.) has me thoroughly convinced that terrorists are EVERYWHERE, and our turning upside-down of ALL INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW is a good thing in these times. Further, if anyone ever does anything 'tortuous' to an American, in future conflicts, it wouldn't be the fault of GW Bush, Dick Cheney, D. Rumsfeld and all their superlative superstar 'legal scholars' for having shown the world that Torture IS not Torture..."
Rather than specious tautologies that try and twist away from the facts... why not just say:
"I think it was WRONG for America to lead the fight against TORTURE between ninety and sixty years ago, and I believe TORTURE is a good tool for government."?

<nb: the author of this post has a JD and studied International Law and THE RULES OF WAR>

ZENpacifizt

Austin Nedved wrote:

Torturing someone who is sitting on vital information --snip--

[ZENmud]

'fools'? when we 'have to' debate what you wrote?
bwaaaaahahahahahaaaa...
:-)

Did you REALLY mean this (obviously. You did)?

"Punishment means the sentance for a conviction of a crime as used in the 8th Amendment."

Setting aside your spelling problems, what do you call what your mommy did to you when you were eight years old, and ate half the cake (at 4PM) she made for your sister's birthday party (starting at 6PM)?

was that NOT PUNISHMENT?

Specious arguments aside... Scalia is a bought-n-paid-for FOOL.

"Unlawful Enemy Combatant" has no basis in International Law, nor in the Rules of War. It was a specious construct of radical right-wing Bush CO staffers, expressly created to throw dust at the UN and the Geneva Conventions.

Right? Glad you agree...

******
Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
*****

As long as you insist on your great authoratative knowledge of the USCON, why don't we all hear your arguments defending EXCESSIVE BAIL (I'd like to see you whining when your DUI put you in jail with FOUR MILLION dollars bail... heh heh), and I'd like to see you go to jail for that DUI for 65 years... but see?

I wouldn't want that done to me, so I would support READING the US Constitution as it stands, because YOU ARE not ACCURATE: the words 'for a crime' NEVER APPEAR as you claim they did....

bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaa

ZENstill

Originalist wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoever put him on did a great service to America.
Is it not obvious to you fools that treatment while in detention not for crime but as an unlawful enemy copmbatant is NOT "cruel and unusual punishment" since it isn't punishment at all.
Punishment means the sentance for a conviction of a crime as used in the 8th Amendment.
Maybe you can sanction me for torturing somone under some theory of law, but it isn't cruel and unusual punishment since it isn't punishment at all.
If you don't get that your too dim to be discussing the US Constitution anyway.