SCALIA SAYS HE SEES A ROLE FOR PHYSICAL INTERROGATIONS

Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, like a hidden bomb about to blow up.

In such cases, �smacking someone in the face� could be justified, Justice Scalia told the British Broadcasting Corporation. He added, �You can�t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, �Oh, it�s torture, and therefore it�s no good.� �

I wish he wouldn't've said that. It will just make him seem like more of a cartoon.

Why not? We really are fooling ourselves if we don't think physical coercion is legitimate. What is the difference between that and sending in soldiers to overwhelm the opposition?

JAS

The quote I read was that he said the constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" was inapplicable to an analysis of torture during interrogation because it was not "punishment." That doesn't mean it might not violate some other principle or law, but it didn't violate the 8th A.

Made sense to me.

It's not the position he takes that bothers me, its that he chose to rely upon rhetorical questions about Jack Bauer to take it. It gives the media the ammunition it needs to make him sound like supports rough interrogation not because of his legal analysis but because he thinks Jack Bauer is cool or he wishes he could be him.

Doesn't context make all the difference! Thanks, Shannon.

JAS

What about Jack Bauer and Buffy living in O.C.? Now, that is the coolest.

Look, Scalia appreciates the value of a lifetime appointment. Before he was appointed, he couldn't say that sort of thing. And, while the hearings for his appointment were in progress, he couldn't say such a thing. Isn't it sad that the First Amendment, which he is sworn to protect, doesn't apply to him, except once he has a lifetime appointment?

Being a law student, I get to read lots and lots (and LOTS) of SCOTUS cases - as most everyone here had to do - and I've noticed that Scalia's opinions are routinely used in the casebooks.

And while I might not agree with some of his opinions, I *always* appreciate his style.

Scalia is writing and thinking for the long-term. He knows that ideas may take time to gain acceptance. His work on the 6th Amendment and hearsay is a good example. Yet, Crawford is nothing but revolutionary in its examination of how we perceive the hearsay rule.

Given Scalia's recent comments during the lethal injection debate before the Court, I wouldn't be surprised to see him lay out a clarified understanding of the 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause ("Since when is punishment supposed to be painless?")