Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Scumbag Scalia

Scumbag Scalia says that torture is not cruel and unusual punishment. Here we have a reactivist judge twisting words and using pretzel logic that is easily undone. Scalia is struggling to arrive at a predetermined conclusion regarding our Constitution that the founder would have never endorsed, to excuse the actions of our Torturer-In-Chief and to take us back to a time when the executive could do as he please with his subjects.

The Scumbag Scalia’s argument turns on his ludicrous conclusion that torture is not “punishment” but merely an attempt to extract information. Scalia in making this lead asks; “What’s he punishing you for?”

My simple and completely obvious reply is that you are being PUNISHED for not divulging information that your torturer believes you may have and that he believes he is entitled to. Logical? DUH!

It is absolutely pathetic that this is the caliber of man who wraps himself in the robes of justice and has sworn to protect our Constitution. This shows that for Scalia the end justifies the means when it comes to executive power and that his proclaimed originalist interpretation of our Constitution is just a sham.

Below is Scalia’s stuttering defense of his medieval beliefs in an interview with Leslie Stahl on CBS’s 60 minutes.

Oh and by the way, his final conclusion that “Anyway, that’s my view. And it happens to be correct.” Is also ridiculous.

The justice has been explaining his positions publicly more and more, and even delving into some thorny issues, like torture. "I don't like torture," Scalia says. "Although defining it is going to be a nice trick. But who's in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the - everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision of the Constitution," he says.

"If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.

"No, No," Scalia replies. "Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks.

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

"Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…," Stahl says.

"And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.

"Sure," Stahl replies.

"What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…," Scalia says.

"Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know," Stahl says.

"It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.

"Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the you-know-what out of you…," Stahl replies.

"Anyway, that’s my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."

1 comment:

Sean Cranley said...

Do I make sense or what? If I wrote Scalia's opinions, they'd be worth the paper they were written on, anyway