Just to jump in here in the middle of things...
First of all, waterboarding is unquestionably torture. It was used by the Spanish Inquisition, if that tells you anything. Having water in your lungs is supposed to be excruciating. Whether any permanent (physical) damage is done is besides the point. Pain is pain, and torture is torture. If captured US soldiers were waterboarded, then all of the people who say it's "just hazing" would be furious -- and rightfully so. (Actually, I believe waterboarding was used by the Japanese against captured US soldier in WWII, and it was considered a war crime.) But it's hypocritical to condemn your enemies for brutality when you're using or condoning brutality yourself.
What's next? Thumbscrews? Hot coals? The rack? Or maybe something more high-tech so that, like waterboarding, it doesn't leave any outward signs of physical damage?
When I was growing up, I always thought of torture as something that "bad countries" did. You know: places like the USSR, Communist China, or the Nazis before them. Never did I imagine that the United States of America -- founded on the concept that ALL men (not just Americans) have certain inalienable rights -- would join the likes of such totalitarian regimes in using torture in the name of "state security." But I guess that's the price of being an empire rather than a free republic.
Regarding Scalia, I understand the fears of the OP. Specific constitutional arguments aside, Scalia strikes me as a statist -- more of a jackbooted, "law and order at all costs" type of "conservative" than someone who believes in small government and strict protection of individual liberties. I fully expect him to "interpret" the Second Amendment in a watered-down manner.
First of all, waterboarding is unquestionably torture. It was used by the Spanish Inquisition, if that tells you anything. Having water in your lungs is supposed to be excruciating. Whether any permanent (physical) damage is done is besides the point. Pain is pain, and torture is torture. If captured US soldiers were waterboarded, then all of the people who say it's "just hazing" would be furious -- and rightfully so. (Actually, I believe waterboarding was used by the Japanese against captured US soldier in WWII, and it was considered a war crime.) But it's hypocritical to condemn your enemies for brutality when you're using or condoning brutality yourself.
What's next? Thumbscrews? Hot coals? The rack? Or maybe something more high-tech so that, like waterboarding, it doesn't leave any outward signs of physical damage?
When I was growing up, I always thought of torture as something that "bad countries" did. You know: places like the USSR, Communist China, or the Nazis before them. Never did I imagine that the United States of America -- founded on the concept that ALL men (not just Americans) have certain inalienable rights -- would join the likes of such totalitarian regimes in using torture in the name of "state security." But I guess that's the price of being an empire rather than a free republic.
Regarding Scalia, I understand the fears of the OP. Specific constitutional arguments aside, Scalia strikes me as a statist -- more of a jackbooted, "law and order at all costs" type of "conservative" than someone who believes in small government and strict protection of individual liberties. I fully expect him to "interpret" the Second Amendment in a watered-down manner.