By Peter Lattman
The Law Blog has never watched an episode of 24, the TV show where Jack Bauer tortures terrorists to save American lives. We do, however, own the first season on DVD, courtesy of the Law Blog’s twin brother (not a lawyer), who thinks we’re missing out on the best show eva.
It seems that Justice Scalia agrees with our brother. The Globe and Mail reported that Scalia came to the defense of Jack Bauer and his torture tactics during an Ottawa conference of international jurists and national security officials last week. During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ”
Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?”
“I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”
Scalia sounds like one of the white supremacists who fought the Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement. After all, what local white jury would convict. In Scalia’s tortured logic, might makes right.
To quote another admin lackey … The Geneva Convention is quaint
Its interesting that many people on this Blog support the alleged constitutional rights of people who are not even residents of this country. OUR constitution does not even apply to them as is evidenced by the 14th (i think) amendment. I don;t see where this liberal philosphy of the US Constitution applying to non-resident aliens/enemy combatants is grounded, is logical, and based in legal precedent. My guess, w/out doing the research is that it is not based in any of those listed above.
Anon@2:07–One of the first refuges of a liberal is to treat the term as if it were derogatory. Most prefer “progressive” or something else, or anything but being called a “liberal”. Are you ashamed of being one? If you called me a conservative, I’d say “thank you”. Instead you call me “a rightwing nutcase”. I have no choice but to take that as the basis of your credibility in all matters. As far as Gitmo, it’s not in the same league as the Nazis by ANY standard. If it were, do you think the reporters, lawyers, “representatives of the international community” and other assorted Administration haters would let it stay unreported for a nanosecond? The media portrayed the reported flushing of a Koran as if it were the Bataan Death March, and that story wasn’t even true. Do you think Nazi-style torture could go hidden? We do know what’s going on there and for the most part, the scumbags who are down there are being treated infinitely better than the uniformed soldiers or innocent civilians who have been captured by the other side and beheaded on videotape. The problem with granting the other side moral equivalence to us is that it ain’t true. Not even close. It may be possible that there are a few people in Gitmo there by mistake. That’s a long way from turning it into Auschwitz, or even a German stalag. Don’t let your hatred, as evidenced by your calling me a nutcase, blind you to the truth.
It is ridiculous to think that not using torture is what has set the United States apart over the last 200 years. Torture was key for our gaining independence and whether right or wrong has been used in every war since. Can one honestly think we didn’t use torture during WWI and WWII? Going to war without being brutal is like playing in the mud without getting dirty.