NationStates Jolt Archive

Torture is not punishment, not at all, it's really not punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M

Context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LOGpnbZrMk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkVPy1DBW8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKldCSw_3Ik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uytH2qi41c&feature=related

Analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LCZYjiW7O0&feature=related

Scalia: Bush v. Gore - yeah "get over it"
Scalia: "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? When he's [policeman's] hurting you to get information from you, he's not punshing you"

Is this guy qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, or should he just be impeached? Let the trial by forum commence!

I haven't clicked the links, nor am I sure who this person is. But those quotes look like the work of a dumbass, and I love impeaching dumbasses.

Honostly, I dont think Scalia should be impeached.


I think he should be fucking killed. I hate him. More than any other government official in the history of the US.

Torture is rarely used these days as a form of punishment, but as of a way of gathering information. This does not mean it is ethical or practical.

*throws peach*

Torture is rarely used these days as a form of punishment, but as of a way of gathering information. This does not mean it is ethical or practical.

If you torture me, I'm more likely to lie to you to stop being tortured then tell you the truth. Yeah, you get information, but it's bullshit info. The best way to get info is to convert agents to your side. I.e. catch Iranian Spies in the US, and convert them to double agents. Spend all of the Guantanamo funding on that, so you get good info, instead of "yeah I'll tell you any lie, just leave me alone..."

If you torture me, I'm more likely to lie to you to stop being tortured then tell you the truth.

Your point being?

Yeah, you get information, but it's bullshit info.

Your point being? Again, I never said it was practical or ethical, that is another discussion.


The best way to get info is to convert agents to your side. I.e. catch Iranian Spies in the US, and convert them to double agents.

Right, send Iranians to brain washing camps, nice.

Right, send Iranians to brain washing camps, nice.

Actual spies only, not regular Iranians living in the US. These probably aren't even middle-eastern. Remember the Rosenbergs and USSR? Nor was the Cardinal, American. I'm saying it's possible, not easy, and a better solution then torturing front-line infantry or innocent people.

Torture is not punishment, not at all, it's really not punishment.

Scalia: Bush v. Gore - yeah "get over it"
Scalia: "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? When he's [policeman's] hurting you to get information from you, he's not punshing you"

Is this guy qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, or should he just be impeached? Let the trial by forum commence!

Scalia is, technically, correct. Torture, while awful and indefensible in just about any scenario, is not really punishment. Punishment is a negative response to a behavior in order to curb or eliminate that behavior. Torture doesn't really fit this definition. I watched most of that interview, and Scalia came across alright, I think. I mean, smug and defiant, but not the antichrist. He basically just talked about how he's a Constructionist, and how this is what informs his views, rather than any sort of broader religious Conservatism.

as twisted and convoluted as his logic is, the constitution does say "cruel and unusual punishment" and someone who is being tortured is typically being tortured for information, not as punishment.

Now whether we should take the term punishment so literally, and whether other aspects of the constitution would also limit such actions, he is right in that torture is not a punishment.

Scalia is, technically, correct. Torture, while awful and indefensible in just about any scenario, is not really punishment. Punishment is a negative response to a behavior in order to curb or eliminate that behavior. Torture doesn't really fit this definition. I watched most of that interview, and Scalia came across alright, I think. I mean, smug and defiant, but not the antichrist. He basically just talked about how he's a Constructionist, and how this is what informs his views, rather than any sort of broader religious Conservatism.

In the Common English Law System, on which the US Constitution was based, along with the Greco-Roman Law System, another pillar for the US Constitution, torture was defined as "punishment of the body...". Now punishment of the body meant that the body would take hits; i.e. if I punched you in the face, your body, more specifically your face would take punishment from my fist. Since torture was defined as "punishment of the body to obtain information or set an example" it was regarded as Cruel and Unusual punishment! Now in the Gladiator Days, or in the Middle Ages, Cruel and Unusual punishment was "ok". It was even "ok" in WWII to be used against the "lesser races" who kicked @$$ of the "superior races". After the Nazi Genocide, claiming around 20 million lives, although most historians of Jewish decent only focus on the 6 million Jews, Cruel and Unusual punishment was banned in most places in Europe. When the last Gulag closed, it was banned in all places in Europe, except the CIA prison-camps. Whoopsie.

Thus, if torture involves bodily punishment, such as beatings, waterboarding, putting a man on a leash, (I highly doubt the leash was custom-made) it is in fact torture.

Actual spies only, not regular Iranians living in the US. These probably aren't even middle-eastern. Remember the Rosenbergs and USSR? Nor was the Cardinal, American. I'm saying it's possible, not easy, and a better solution then torturing front-line infantry or innocent people.

They probably already are doing this.

I haven't clicked the links, nor am I sure who this person is. But those quotes look like the work of a dumbass, and I love impeaching dumbasses.

He's one of the two biggest asshats on the US Supreme Court who are pretty much subverting the Constitution by arguing that they represent the "intent" of the authors.

He's one of the two biggest asshats on the US Supreme Court who are pretty much subverting the Constitution by arguing that they represent the "intent" of the authors.

I have two words for them: ninth amendment. An enourmously opened ended amendment which can be used to make almost anything constitutional. It's full of win :)

I have two words for them: ninth amendment.

I have a feeling the US supreme court justice has heard of it.

I have a feeling the US supreme court justice has heard of it.

(... I wait for </sarcasm> tags to be invented.)

i guess it was pretty concieted, but, i thought you were talking about me

"Scalia" looks like you spelled "skalvia" wrong, lol...

When this came up in another thread, I commented that while it's a complete asshole argument, he's right. No matter. Scalia knows quite well that we have other laws against torture.

Impeach Bush first. Then you can ask me again after.

Should we impeach one of the only SCOTUS justices who understands what it means to interpret the constitution to protect the law and order the country was founded on? Heavens no. Scalia and Thomas may be the only ones standing between us and activist justices implementing a legislative tyranny and the re-writing of the constitution.

:rolleyes:Should we impeach one of the only SCOTUS justices who understands what it means to interpret the constitution to protect the law and order the country was founded on? Heavens no. Scalia and Thomas may be the only ones standing between us and activist justices implementing a legislative tyranny and the re-writing of the constitution.

Given how two justices do not constitute a majority they aren't doing all that much. I also doubt that Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are "activist justices".

And the horror of justices actually enforcing any of our constitutional amendments... we must stop that immediately.

Now I think there is a good reason to impeach scalia, but this isn't it. One thing he did, as a matter of jurisprudence, was horribly and utterly wrong.

Now I think there is a good reason to impeach scalia, but this isn't it. One thing he did, as a matter of jurisprudence, was horribly and utterly wrong.

The question is "should Scalia be impeached?" It doesn't matter what reason you want to impeach him for, this may well not be it, please show me your reason, I am a bit curious. We can always add it, or make another poll. :D

The question is "should Scalia be impeached?" It doesn't matter what reason you want to impeach him for, this may well not be it, please show me your reason, I am a bit curious. We can always add it, or make another poll. :D

Why? Simple. There was a case, not too long ago, frankly the details were unimportant. It had to do with whether a state staute pre-empted federal authority I believe, but it really doesn't matter. Suffice to say it was a minor and largely inconsequential statute, as far as constitutional law goes.

The majority found the statute was unconstitutional and struck it down. Scalia was in the minority that said the statute was constitutional, and should not be struck down. Now, that's fine. He has the right to dissent, and if he should feel the majority was in error, it's his perogative to say so. The problem came with what happened next. He said that not only did he disagree with the majority and the statute should stand, in his opinion, but that he would continue to treat the statute as valid in future cases until the state legislature decided to change it.

And that's a huge problem. Regardless of what Scalia thinks of the majority opinion, it is the majority opinion that rules. He's free to disagree, but if the majority rules a statute unconstitutional, that statute is done. Finished. Deceased. This parrot is no more. What the supreme court says is law, and since the majority declared that statute unconstitutional, that statute, by law was unconstitutional, and struck down.

Scalia, on the other hand, not only disagreed with the ruling, but said he would continue to apply a statute that was, as a matter of law, illegal. A sitting judge said he would continue to apply a statute contrary to the US constitution.

THAT is an impeachable offense.

Torture is not punishment, not at all, it's really not punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M

Context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LOGpnbZrMk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkVPy1DBW8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKldCSw_3Ik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uytH2qi41c&feature=related

Analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LCZYjiW7O0&feature=related

Scalia: Bush v. Gore - yeah "get over it"
Scalia: "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? When he's [policeman's] hurting you to get information from you, he's not punshing you"

Is this guy qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, or should he just be impeached? Let the trial by forum commence!

Yeah I watched that episode of 60 Minutes.

...like 60 Minutes has ANY claim to impatriality whatsoever. You think that report was unbiased and fair?

If so, I've got some beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

Torture is rarely used these days as a form of punishment, but as of a way of gathering information. This does not mean it is ethical or practical.

Although it is.

Although it is.

shoo puppet we're talking here.

Why? Simple. There was a case, not too long ago, frankly the details were unimportant. It had to do with whether a state staute pre-empted federal authority I believe, but it really doesn't matter. Suffice to say it was a minor and largely inconsequential statute, as far as constitutional law goes.

The majority found the statute was unconstitutional and struck it down. Scalia was in the minority that said the statute was constitutional, and should not be struck down. Now, that's fine. He has the right to dissent, and if he should feel the majority was in error, it's his perogative to say so. The problem came with what happened next. He said that not only did he disagree with the majority and the statute should stand, in his opinion, but that he would continue to treat the statute as valid in future cases until the state legislature decided to change it.

And that's a huge problem. Regardless of what Scalia thinks of the majority opinion, it is the majority opinion that rules. He's free to disagree, but if the majority rules a statute unconstitutional, that statute is done. Finished. Deceased. This parrot is no more. What the supreme court says is law, and since the majority declared that statute unconstitutional, that statute, by law was unconstitutional, and struck down.

Scalia, on the other hand, not only disagreed with the ruling, but said he would continue to apply a statute that was, as a matter of law, illegal. A sitting judge said he would continue to apply a statute contrary to the US constitution.

THAT is an impeachable offense.
THAT is integrity.

I have a feeling the US supreme court justice has heard of it.

well, a good assumption for most justices. scalia is something of a special case.

THAT is integrity.

Integrity is willfully breaking the law?

Impeaching him is a bit harsh. Let's just bash him in the head a few times so he resigns from the bench and runs as the 2012 republican nominee.

I haven't clicked the links, nor am I sure who this person is. But those quotes look like the work of a dumbass, and I love impeaching dumbasses.

Let's get started! I'll get the directory with all the government officials and you start filling out paperwork. It'd be easier to cross out the good officials from the directory than make a list of the dumbasses.

Scalia is evil.

He's one of the two biggest asshats on the US Supreme Court who are pretty much subverting the Constitution by arguing that they represent the "intent" of the authors.

Actually no. Constructionism requires a judge to apply the text of a law as it is written and no further. That means you don't alter the law like a judicial activist as when the Florida Supreme court altered Florida's election laws in Gore/Bush. It means that you apply the law as written and let the legislature make the changes. That is their job after all.

I like Scalia and Thomas. They understand the role they are supposed to play according to the Constitution.

Fuck Scalia. I don't give a shit if he is "technically correct". If you are hurting someone because you believe they did something wrong or they know someone who did something wrong then that is cruel and it's punishment. Whatever the law says doesn't matter to me. The law doesn't translate into common sense sometimes. They are being detained (jailed) as well, not JUST interrogated. Detention against someones will is punishment AFAIC.

Whatever the law says doesn't matter to me.

But it sure as hell should matter to a judge

But it sure as hell should matter to a judge

Right but I'm just ranting and venting my anger, while wishing pain upon assholes.

It's one of my, if I were in charge of the law moments.

Fuck Scalia. I don't give a shit if he is "technically correct". If you are hurting someone because you believe they did something wrong or they know someone who did something wrong then that is cruel and it's punishment. Whatever the law says doesn't matter to me. The law doesn't translate into common sense sometimes. They are being detained (jailed) as well, not JUST interrogated. Detention against someones will is punishment AFAIC.

But they're not torturing them b/c they believe they did something wrong, they're torturing them b/c they believe it will save innocent lives, so it's not punishment. And how can you defend the rights of a terrorist over the lives of millions of people. You're defending their rights even though they don't acknowledge anyone else's.

You're defending their rights even though they don't acknowledge anyone else's.

Yes, because that's what people who respect the law do. Recognize that everyone has rights, even the people we don't like.

But they're not torturing them b/c they believe they did something wrong, they're torturing them b/c they believe it will save innocent lives, so it's not punishment. And how can you defend the rights of a terrorist over the lives of millions of people. You're defending their rights even though they don't acknowledge anyone else's.

We cannot use belief as a basis for infringing the rights of other people. Anyone can claim to believe anything, and anyone can honestly believe anything; that doesn't entitle a normal person to break the law, and it shouldn't entitle a government to either.

disagreeing with a decision no matter how messed up is not matters for impeachment of a supreme court justice.
It is there job.
just hope he retires soon.

It's actually kind of nice having Scalia as a justice. That way if you want to know the moral and just argument for a case, you can just listen to what he says, believe the exact opposite, and you'll have the just and moral argument 75% of the time.

Should we impeach one of the only SCOTUS justices who understands what it means to interpret the constitution to protect the law and order the country was founded on? Heavens no. Scalia and Thomas may be the only ones standing between us and activist justices implementing a legislative tyranny and the re-writing of the constitution.

Do you know anything?


You dont have to answer. I already know.

Do you know anything?


You dont have to answer. I already know.

Psh. Clearly you're wrong. Activist judges have been clogging our system for decades, if not a century. We need to interpret things exactly how the founding fathers did. Don't listen to the liberal media who tells you that slavery is wrong, or that women deserve rights, they're all wrong. Oh and don't even get me started about how they think gay people deserve equal protection, that's another lie concocted by the liberal media.

Interesting, that the media, filled with mostly intelligent people, would tend to be liberal.

Interesting, that the media, filled with mostly intelligent people, would tend to be liberal.

What world do you live in where

A) Intellegent people arent liberal
B) The media is filled with intellgent people

What world do you live in where

A) Intellegent people arent liberal
B) The media is filled with intellgent people
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/super_smilies007.gif

What world do you live in where

A) Intellegent people arent liberal
B) The media is filled with intellgent people
I was just being sarcastic. I think it is interesting though, that journalists and analysts are fairly intelligent, and people like to allege a vast conspiracy of Liberal Bias. It just seems like a bit of an insult to the very people who allege this vast conspiracy.

So far I've failed to see any grounds under which Scalia could be impeached. I mean, the OP provided evidence of asshattery, but no evidence of any charges on which Scalia could be impeached.

I was just being sarcastic. I think it is interesting though, that journalists and analysts are fairly intelligent, and people like to allege a vast conspiracy of Liberal Bias. It just seems like a bit of an insult to the very people who allege this vast conspiracy.

Sorry. This is another case of "Ive heard it said in seriousness so I dont find it hard to believe someone would say it."


And Im not familier enough with your posts to know what you really think yet.;)

So far I've failed to see any grounds under which Scalia could be impeached. I mean, the OP provided evidence of asshattery, but no evidence of any charges on which Scalia could be impeached.

See Neo Arts post.

See Neo Arts post.

Until he acts upon it it remains that he is not impeachable.

Pretty much what was said before me; can't be impeached for those words.

I agree with the statement that it's not punishment but a form of interrogation but then how can you guarantee that the interrogatee(?) has the information you want? Or is even the right guy? Hence why the death sentence should be abolished

Until he acts upon it it remains that he is not impeachable.

Actually, he is sworn to uphold the constitution. That he says he won't is reason enough. If the President said it was his intent to destroy the Constitution and ignore the will of the people, we'd have no trouble impeaching him. These are people who's job requires them to not only uphold the constitution actively but to swear to do so. Scalia swore in a court of law that he would uphold the constitution. He's not refusing to do so.

As for torture, was it torture when they used to put people in the stockades? Yup. Was it punishment? Yep. By every definition. So clearly torture is SOMETIMES punishment.

Meanwhile, you have to have an extremely narrow definition of punishment, one not supported by the document we call the Constitution and the writings of those who created it, in order to consider torture to not ALWAYS qualify as punishment.

But they're not torturing them b/c they believe they did something wrong, they're torturing them b/c they believe it will save innocent lives, so it's not punishment. And how can you defend the rights of a terrorist over the lives of millions of people. You're defending their rights even though they don't acknowledge anyone else's.

But you don't even know that he's a terrorist. If you knew he was a terrorist, why the heck are you broadcasting his torture? The Russians listed one of the Beslan terrorists as missing, and had fun with him; yeah don't shoot kids in the back for money, if you don't want to find out what a faith worse then Gulag's like. The law however, applies not to terrorists, but to American Citizens whom the government officials have no proof against. We're talking Gitmo here, not those Al-Queda members the CIA had fun with in Afghanistan; that's fine and dandy, they're not protected by the Constitution. But the government cannot just barge into my house, knock down my door, declare me a terrorist and torture away. See Padilla v. Rumsfeld. That's what we're talking about here, no one's using the Constitution to defend bin Laden.

not those Al-Queda members the CIA had fun with in Afghanistan; that's fine and dandy, they're not protected by the Constitution.

We are still bound by its laws. Thus, they get all the rights afforded to American citizens when arrested.


SCOTUS says so.

Actually, he is sworn to uphold the constitution. That he says he won't is reason enough. If the President said it was his intent to destroy the Constitution and ignore the will of the people, we'd have no trouble impeaching him. These are people who's job requires them to not only uphold the constitution actively but to swear to do so. Scalia swore in a court of law that he would uphold the constitution. He's not refusing to do so.


So saying "I'm the Decider" is upholding the Constitution?

So saying "I'm the Decider" is upholding the Constitution?

Huh?

as twisted and convoluted as his logic is, the constitution does say "cruel and unusual punishment" and someone who is being tortured is typically being tortured for information, not as punishment.

I say we counter by giving the NYPD free reign with Scalia and a pair of electrodes. For shits and giggles. It's not illegal after all. It's not punishment.

But they're not torturing them b/c they believe they did something wrong, they're torturing them b/c they believe it will save innocent lives, so it's not punishment. And how can you defend the rights of a terrorist over the lives of millions of people. You're defending their rights even though they don't acknowledge anyone else's.

Your death would save millions of people from headaches caused by your ignorant blather. Would you commit suicide? Of course not, puppet that you are.

I don't think we're allowed to impeach supreme court justices.

Scalia is not an idiot, he's just a bad person. As many people have mentioned, he chose his words very carefully to frame torture as a method of extracting information, not punishment for a crime, and therefor not a violation of the 8th amendment.

Actually, he is sworn to uphold the constitution. That he says he won't is reason enough. If the President said it was his intent to destroy the Constitution and ignore the will of the people, we'd have no trouble impeaching him. These are people who's job requires them to not only uphold the constitution actively but to swear to do so. Scalia swore in a court of law that he would uphold the constitution. He's not refusing to do so.

You mean if he actually used those words, instead of just doing all that and calling it something else?

...I'm still not sure this country would impeach him. :( It's nice to think someone is optimistic, though.

THAT is integrity.

If so, then I'm sure he won't mind enduring the consequences of his integrity and stepping down from an office he's obviously no longer fit to be in.

I don't think we're allowed to impeach supreme court justices.

It is actually possible. And I think it was in my AP History class that we learned it an impeachment vote as almost successful once. I don't think that impeachment of Supreme Court justices has ever been successful.


Scalia is not an idiot, he's just a bad person.

Thank you. I think we can lose sight of things like that too often.



As many people have mentioned, he chose his words very carefully to frame torture as a method of extracting information, not punishment for a crime, and therefor not a violation of the 8th amendment.
I think that it would be interesting if someone shot him in the face and then argued that it wasn't murder, just "defense of a Free State." It would be quite the Scalian line.

So far I've failed to see any grounds under which Scalia could be impeached. I mean, the OP provided evidence of asshattery, but no evidence of any charges on which Scalia could be impeached.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall times in the past where both he and Thomas, especially Scala, have made statements about cases relating to ones coming before the court and then refusing to recuse themselves when the cases appeared.

I don't think we're allowed to impeach supreme court justices.

In California we can indirectly impeach them. The odds of this happening are 0.001% but it is legal. Californians can pass a proposition saying that Congressmen who do not attempt to impeach justices that voted for Bush v. Gore cannot run again for their seat from the Great State of California. Of course the odds of such a proposition passing are virtually nil, it is possible.

Now assuming the Supreme Court wishes to declare it un-Constitutional. Well in that case, the Congressmen and Congresswomen who don't impeach them, would become so unpopular, that they would be voted out anyways, because Californians would rather send a nice little "fuck you" to the Supreme Court for the Illegal Immigration mess they've put us in, then keep incumbent leaders.