Presumtion of guilt

Say whatever you want about torture, but this fact remains: We are innocent until proven guilty. Using torture to prevent a crime is therefore unethical and unconstitutional.

You cannot punish someone
before they commit the crime
for which you are punishing them.

Scalia talks about a hypothetical situation in which a suspect has hidden a bomb in L.A. But he's pulling a fast one, like every one else involved in the Bushcheney torture fest. Follow me here:

We're in L.A. Suddenly, the news reports that "a credible bomb threat has been reported... bomb... somewhere in the train system...." Or something like that. Cops run out to round up some suspects (Problem 1: seven years later and we're still looking for Osama bin Laden, so how effective will this round-up be? Dubious at best). The cops bring in some guys, maybe legitimate suspects, maybe not (doesn't matter for our game today), and proceed to interrogate, but find that the subjects won't talk (they claim they know nothing... right!). Interrogation continues, with no progress, and the cops get agitated. There's a bomb under the city, and people are about to die! The FBI is called in, and serious interrogation begins.

But wait, full stop- no crime has been committed. An anonymous bomb threat was issued. No bomb has exploded, or even been found. No one in custody is guilty of anything, but someone is being tortured, punished for crimes they not only did not commit, but may not even have planned. This is punishment before a crime; punishment for thoughtcrime, if the people being punished were even the ones who planned the thing (presuming there is a bomb at all). Let this sink in a second: Someone, possibly your friend, has been stripped of their humanity, has been strapped to a table and subjected to things you wouldn't do to your worst enemy. Remember: the suspect is innocent. It might well be you.



In another scenario, let's say there IS a bomb, and that it goes off. NOW a crime has been committed. But if the suspects have already been tortured, then we have a problem on our hands: their constitutional rights were seriously breached, and the whole case will have to be closed because the evidence was soiled by improper collection methods.

Scalia is a nutjob. For this interview, for this stated position on torture (and therefore legal ethics and our Constitution in general), he should be impeached and removed from office.

Torture IS unconstitutional: it presumes guilt.

Specifically, it contravenes our fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; due process of law guaranteed to all; right to a speedy and public trial; guarantee that all citizens are protected by same), not to mention any number of ratified international treaties.

Our constitution may not survive Antonin Scalia. Our country -our freedoms-- will not outlive the constitution. Brace yourselves.

***
In 1924, George Gershwin premiered "Rhapsody in Blue."