Scalia on Torture.

The quote from Scalia:
"Well, a lot of people think it is, but I find that extraordinary to begin with. To begin with, the constitution refers to cruel and unusual punishment, it is referring to punishment on indefinitely — would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime. But a court can do that when a witness refuses to answer or commit them to jail until you will answer the question — without any time limit on it, as a means of coercing the witness to answer, as the witness should. And I suppose it’s the same thing about “so-called” torture."

This all from an interview with the BBC on Februar 12, 2008.

So again the conservative movement engages semantic gymanstics such that the conclusion they started with allows them to artfully craft the argument. He makes actually an interesting point. That the torture as we assume it has been inflicted is not retributive, it is profolactic. That is, the torture is intent on discovery of evidence or prevention of crime which may at this time be only conspired. Except that:

1) the fifth amendment :provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against themself.

2)The geneva conventions explicitly prohibit the use of torture

3) The precedent at law in the United States establishes that waterboarding is torture and a war crime, as the United States has prosicuted German and Japanese soldiers for this act.


This is not contradictory amid a theoretical conservative construct because:

1) the world changed on 9/11

2) american exceptionalism posits that all American actions are defacto good acts.