Text 11680, 48 rader
Skriven 2009-06-01 20:52:00 av Earl Croasmun (1:226/600)
     Kommentar till en text av Dan Ceppa
Ärende: Re-reexamining Torture ..
=================================
-> DD> "What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody," Scalia says.

-> Amazing.  Cops get to kick the living shit out of you because you
-> haven't been found giulty of anything.

That would be police brutality, which as most people know is illegal.
It would not fit the definition of punishment as used in the
Constitution.  Scalia explained that in the interview.  You should have
read it, if you could have stopped your knee from jerking for a minute.

You could also read, for example:

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/05/scalia-torture-and-responsib
ilities-of.html

A few selections for you to fail to read:

"Scalia is right.  For something to count as punishment it has to be a
penalty inflicted by law for the commission of a crime."

"The moral issue that I have with this is that those who wrote gotcha
articles against Scalia on this issue should have known the truth about
what he said."

"Those who knew but who did not care have shown that they are the type
of people who are comfortable with bearing false witness against others
for the purpose of promoting (unjustified) hostility against them. We do
not need these types of people in this culture. We are much better
served by people who care about the truth."

"Those who did not know what Scalia actually meant were intellectually
reckless. They were still people motivated by a desire to hate and, as a
result of that motivation, blinded themselves to relevant facts that a
concerned and responsible person would have seen."

"We can extend this sphere of moral culpability outward to include the
audience for these writers. This type of writing exists to the degree
that there is an audience for it  a group of readers whose attitude is,
"Do not tell me the truth. Tell me what I want to hear.""

This, by the way, is from a blogger who dislikes Scalia, dislikes
Scalia's politics, and expressed a dislike of being put in the position
of saying that, in this instance, Scalia is right.  His comments make it
look like he anticipated exactly what you and Drummond have been saying
in this thread!

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)