Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture abroad
rawstory.com — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.
oh2dc- 47 diggs
- digg it
- Foxboy1313, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Article 3 of the third Geneva convention describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
- LWeskamp, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7When a society starts making justifications for torturing people you know things are not good. When Pentagon propaganda like 24 where the hero must torture someone in order to save people is the norm things are not good, once Pandora's Box is opened there is no going back, there is no shallow end in that pool.
- yellowcakewalk, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5USA has become a rogue, pariah state, like Israel, with no regard whatsoever for human life or international law.
- petrodollar, on 02/12/2008, -3/+1Nino makes a reasonable argument: if the choice is between 5 million dead in LA or NYC or wherever and waterboarding some poor schlub, of course we should waterboard. The founding fathers almost certainly didn't think otherwise. The real issue is what to do when the stakes aren't as high.
Score one for Nino though if you think torture is ONLY being done in instances where there is good reason to suspect that a plot to kill millions of innocents is imminent. What do you do with a guy like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed if indeed you accept the contention that he orchestrated 9/11? Go easy and possibly let thousands, if not millions die because of your delicate reading of the constitution?
Also, it's worth noting that many punishments that we now regard as "cruel and unusual" were considered commonplace when the constitution was written. The founding fathers evidently did not consider stocks, floggings, and hangings to be cruel or unusual, although we would undoubtedly treat them as such today.- ZacT, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4It's never reasonable to torture. Because then there is no line. LWeskamp was on the money, once you open the doors, then there is no stopping it. If the US starts treating it's detainees poorly then every American soldier who is caught will also be tortured. Every civilian that is kidnapped will be tortured.
Does this sound like a good idea? The US will be in no position to condemn any other nation for human rights violations as they will be violating them as well.
This is a very very bad thing. - chicofaraby, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2No, you stupid *****. It's never acceptable to torture. Never.
You parents suck ass for raising you so poorly.
- ZacT, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4It's never reasonable to torture. Because then there is no line. LWeskamp was on the money, once you open the doors, then there is no stopping it. If the US starts treating it's detainees poorly then every American soldier who is caught will also be tortured. Every civilian that is kidnapped will be tortured.
- david865, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3this guy is a pimp for the Bush administration. What worries me is they still have time to invade Iran before they leave. Don't you just love these guys?!!
- headt0thebunker, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1This is some scary stuff when the Supreme Court can't be depended upon to render a decision consistent with historic American believes. This country has never been the "country that tortures" people.....We were the country other people turned to when their government was torturing its citizens....Now we are becoming that country
- Semirhage527, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Scalia is the best argument I've ever seen for having a procedure for removing Supreme Court Justices.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by