Replying to a message of Dan Ceppa to Dave Drum:

 DD>> "If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized
 DD>> by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel
 DD>> and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.

 DD>> "No, No," Scalia replies.

 DC> He's hasn't been impeached yet?  He should be om the grounds of
 DC> stupidity. 

 DD>> "Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's
 DD>> taken you into custody…," Stahl says.

 DD>> "And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.

 DD>> "Sure," Stahl replies.

 DD>> "What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…,"
Scalia says.

 DC> Amazing.  Cops get to kick the living shit out of you because you 
 DC> haven't been found giulty of anything.  

That's the lawyer mindset.  Most any lawyer should say the same thing.

 DD>> "It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get
 DD>> information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he
 DD>> punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.

 DC> He sounds like Yoo justifying the Bush/Cheney "enhanced
 DC> interrogation".   They all should be brought up for war crimes.  

 DD>> "Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the
 DD>> you-know-what out of you…," Stahl replies.

 DD>> "Anyway, that’s my view," Scalia says. "And it
happens to be
 DD>> correct."

 DC> May Scalia get pulled over and be asked such "questions"
by some cop
 DC> who  mistakes him for a terrorist.  

The justice *is* legally correct, though.  Legal doesn't mean either ethical or
moral.  Punishment follows conviction; if you're not convicted it's not
punishment - it just hurts like punishment.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+