Text 11973, 88 rader
Skriven 2009-06-14 06:45:00 av Dave Drum (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Dan Ceppa
Ärende: Re: Lost messages
=========================
-=> Dan Ceppa wrote to Dave Drum <=-

 DC> Scalia stated that torture is not unconstitutional, plain and simple.

 DD> And that is true. It is NOT unconstitutional. But, it is illegal ("we
 DD> have a law against torture" - Scalia).

 DC> There's the rub.  Remember, W's justice department ruled that the
 DC> torture was legal.

No, they didn't. They opined that the acts of "enhanced interrogation" outlined
in their specious memos were NOT torture. 
 
 DD> And you have been equating that to claiming that he said that "kicking
 DD> the shit out of a suspect" was legal.

 DD> Scalia also said that there are laws against torture.

 DC> Yes, laws, laws that can be changed.  It's a defense of the Unitary
 DC> President Powers that the neocons were pushing.

 DD> Therefore, because there is no Constitutional prohibition against an
 DD> action it is not automatically legal - as you seemed to be proposing in
 DD> attributing that position to Justice Scalia.

 DC> Care to bet he takes it that route should a case go so far as the SC?

I never bet on what a lawyer will do. However, given Scalia's legal philosophy
as demonstrated in his decisions thus far I think your position is full of
hit.

 DC> I've seen the video a couple of times.  Based on his answer, what he's
 DC> doing is defending the use of torture and "unfortunate but
 DC> constitutional". That position is appalling.

 DD> I didn't hear those words. Here is the quote from the transcript ...
 DD> "I don't like torture," Scalia says. "Although defining it is going to
 DD> be a nice trick. But who's in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law
 DD> against torture. But if the - everything that is hateful and odious is
 DD> not covered by some provision of the Constitution,"

 DD> Then Ms. Stahl attempts to equate torture with punishment ... which it
 DD> is NOT.

 DD> Here is the definition of punishment ...

 DD> from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p201.htm

 DD> "PUNISHMENT - Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a
 DD> person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the
 DD> omission of the performance of an act required by law, by the judgment
 DD> and command of some lawful court."

 DC> Therefore, "enhanced interrogation" is legal?  We may as well throw out
 DC> Miranda why we are at it.  Oh yeah, and put in a requisition for a
 DC> batch of rubber hoses.

Now where did you get that? Just because some Bushie-biased lawyers wrote a
memo or two on it does not make it legal. You are still trying to traverse that
chasm in two leaps, Dan.
 
 DD> Here is one of the other quotes on torture and punishment.

 DD> "To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture
 DD> as punishment? I don't think so."

 DC> Notice how the Geneva Conventions were waved off by Gonzo as being
 DC> "quaint".  Couple that with W's "it's a god damned piece of paper".

 DD> I know who is "W" (as in WWII or George III) - but, who the frimp is
 DD> "Gonzo". If you mean Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney say so.

 DC> Alberto Gonzales!  I'm not 100% sure, but I think that was W's name for
 DC> him.  After all, he called Rove, "Turd Blossom".

BTW, you still haven't given the cite I asked for, for the quote "unfortunate
but constitutional". Did you make it up?

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)