Why Scalia worries me in D.C vs. Heller...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Waterboarding is torture? No more then a cold room that is too small to lay down completly in with bright lights on.

You CAN NOT get water in your lungs, drown, suffocate, etc. it is purly psyclogical. It evokes the panic reflex that you ARE drowning/suffocating. You are prone on your back with your body tilted with your head lower then your feet. A wet cloth is put over your face and water is pour onto the cloth. Your hands and feet are secured and you can't help but feel like you can't breath, but you can, you feel like your drowning because water is getting in your nasal pasages and sucked into your mouth when you breath, but you CAN breath if you keep your head.

Odd that to idea of shooting someone in self defense is tolerable but getting someones face wet and freaking them out for national security isn't.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.
 
STAGE 2, you're ignoring some of my arguments in some places, and attacking "straw man" arguments elsewhere (i.e. claims that I did not make). So I'm going to bow out of that discussion.

Bruxley: even if it's purely psychological, it falls within the definition of torture from the UN treaty. IMO, it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering, especially to someone who is helpless (i.e. a prisoner under your control). I completely agree with SteelCore.

Anyway, I believe that fundamental rights should apply to all people, regardless of nationality; and I believe the Bill of Rights should restrain our government from infringing upon those rights regardless of geography. This is my belief, and it is only partly supported by legal precedent.

So the claims made by Scalia in the article are dangerous, I think.
 
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.
Click to expand...

1. You dont get water in your lungs when waterboarded
2. There is nothing painful about being waterboarded
3. Waterboarding produces SOLELY a psychological effect. Its a simulation that your brain believes is real.

Lets stick with the facts.


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.
Click to expand...

Then you clearly havent read any of his opinions.


STAGE 2, you're ignoring some of my arguments in some places, and attacking "straw man" arguments elsewhere (i.e. claims that I did not make). So I'm going to bow out of that discussion.
Click to expand...

A little disingenuous but thats fine. At the end of the day your original contention, that he actually means he and she, was contradicted by the definition that you posted.
 
don't breath through your nose and swallow the water after each breath. Let it gurgle......it won't flow up hill.
Click to expand...

There's only so much water you can swallow before you vomit and aspirate. Then you can die.

But I will be honest. There is really nothing anyone can say that will convince me waterboarding is not torture, nor is there anything anyone can say to convince me that the greatest nation on earth and world's moral leader should be involved in questionable tactics such as this.
 
nor is there anything anyone can say to convince me that the greatest nation on earth and world's moral leader should be involved in questionable tactics such as this.
Click to expand...

We've been involved in "questionable tactics" for a very long time. The only difference between today and say 20-30 years ago is that the media is everywhere and the people who are willing to get their hands dirty to protect our nation don't have the same anonymity as they used to.
 
I have no doubt what you said is true. The only reason I didn't oppose these kinds of things 20 or 30 yrs ago is because I was too young and didn't now about them. I think it is good the media brings the way our government functions out into the open. A free press is essential to a moral Republic.
 
But I will be honest. There is really nothing anyone can say that will convince me ......, nor is there anything anyone can say to convince me
Click to expand...

That's the way most on this forum feel about everything.
 
Just another note on women and the Constitution.
Women held elective office before the 19th amendment was ratified.
Jeannette Rankin was a representative from Montana in 1917, 3 years before the 19th was ratified. There had also been several women who held local and state offices before ratification.
So it wasn't the constitution that barred women from being president.
 
There's only so much water you can swallow before you vomit and aspirate. Then you can die.
Click to expand...

Not if your head is lower then your chest. Your mouth and nasal passages don't have the volume to fill your airway. You WILL cough violently and uncontrolably but you cannot asperate or drown or get fluid in your lungs or suffocate. Your bran will BELIEVE you are, but you cannot.
 
I would love to participate in the discussion here, if only I could figure out which discussion to participate in!

Thread veer so far it's about to drop off the edge...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top