CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scalia Loves Jack Bauer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scalia Loves Jack Bauer

post #1 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:03pm
Thread Starter 
Antonin Scalia, making the US proud...From the Globe and Mail..
Here...

Quote:
Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.


"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged 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.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."
God Scalia pisses me off. Grudgingly, I had some respect for the man. No more. Do these idiots understand that 24 IS A FUCKING TV SHOW??? A WORK OF GODDAMNED FICTION!!!? If one more conservative offers up 24 as an excuse to torture, detain, and otherwise erode our civil liberties, I'm going to stick my head through a wall...
Reply
post #2 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:06pm
You.

Have.

To.

Be.

Fucking.

Kidding.

Me.

Let's hope no one mentions Chuck Norris to him.
Reply
post #3 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:09pm
Thread Starter 
I wish I was.
Reply
post #4 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:16pm
Thread Starter 
And another goddamned thing: don't these conservative assholes hate Hollywood? Shouldn't they be hating on Sutherland for being a "liberal" actor....

God, what wankers.
Reply
post #5 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:22pm
So, a Supreme Court Justice can lose it and confuse reality with 24 and it's no biggie but Howard Dean screams in frustration and he's a dangerous nutjob.

Gotta love the liberal media.
Reply
post #6 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:46pm
"The law should be the way I want it to be." Isn't that what we all want from our Supreme Court justices?
Reply
post #7 of 71
6/19/07 at 7:59pm
Yes, clearly Scalia has lost touch with reality and thinks the events of 24 really happened. Or maybe, during a panel discussion on a particular legal subject, he seized upon an example from the world of fiction (already raised by another panel member) to illustrate the point he was trying to make about whether the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario justifies torture. During three years of law school, I had a more than a few professors use examples from popular fiction to illustrate the legal principles we were discussing.

By the way, the writer of the article cuts to the heart of what they were apparently discussing:

Quote:
Every episode poses an implicit question to its viewers: Does the end justify the means if national security is at stake?
It sounds like that was a main topic of discussion. And the author also quotes Scalia to show some of his views on this as stated in a 2004 dissenting opinion regarding presidential orders and enemy combatants:

Quote:
While Judge Scalia argued that doomsday scenarios may well lead to the reconsideration of rights, in his legal decisions he has also said that catastrophic attacks and intelligence imperatives do not automatically give the U.S. president a blank cheque - the people have to decide. "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this court," he dissented in a 2004 decision. The judicial majority ruled that a presidential order meant that an American "enemy combatant" wasn't entitled to challenge the conditions of his detention, which happened to be aboard a naval brig.
Reply
post #8 of 71
6/19/07 at 8:06pm
Someone needs to introduce Judge Scalia to fan-fiction!
Reply
post #9 of 71
6/19/07 at 8:16pm
He also wrote the dissenting opinion on Jack Bauer v Wolverine.
Reply
post #10 of 71
6/19/07 at 8:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior
He also wrote the dissenting opinion on Jack Bauer v Wolverine.
That's such a frustrating case, because Jack clearly has it all over him on the merits, but no matter what he does Wolverine just keeps appealing, and appealing, and appealing, and appealing...
Reply
post #11 of 71
6/19/07 at 9:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Yes, clearly Scalia has lost touch with reality and thinks the events of 24 really happened. Or maybe, during a panel discussion on a particular legal subject, he seized upon an example from the world of fiction (already raised by another panel member) to illustrate the point he was trying to make about whether the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario justifies torture. During three years of law school, I had a more than a few professors use examples from popular fiction to illustrate the legal principles we were discussing.
Yes, I've had law professors use pop culture to expand upon concepts discussed in class, that's fine. However, I take exception to a SCOTUS Justice being sympathetic to torture, particularly when there is a reckoning coming with the Bush Admin after it's taken such actions like removing habeas and asserting the right to hold anyone, indefinitely and without counsel, while subjecting them to brutal and inhumane treatment. Scalia may just be illustrating a legal principal, but it's a loathsome legal principal and one that's gotten way too much traction in our country. I firmly believe that John Yoo and the rest of the torture/unitary executive cabal have done more to damage this country and its founding principals than anything some jackass terrorist could ever accomplish in a million years. Scalia is obviously sympathetic to that viewpoint and I think he deserves to be called out on it. Especially considering how almost all (Ron Paul excepted) of the GOP Presidential field is trying to out-manly each other by invoking the holy name of Jack Bauer and suggesting how great torture is. I'm tired of that bullshit and it embarrasses me that a fellow attorney would be sympathetic to a pro-torture position.

And yes, I know it was framed as a simple legal policy discussion. But, as the article pointed out, Scalia's unhinged bullshit came after a Canadian judge suggested that the Jack Bauer's techniques were outlandish.
Reply
post #12 of 71
6/20/07 at 12:54am
The specter of the mushroom cloud and the "ticking time bomb" are to Scalia and his ilk as Natalie Portman and Jessica Biel are to most chewers in the sex forum. The distillation of that fantasy into the scenarios 24 paints is entertaining but ultimately science fiction. Hearing it invoked by a Supreme Court Justice is f%$#&^% terrifying.
Reply
post #13 of 71
6/20/07 at 3:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Yes, clearly Scalia has lost touch with reality and thinks the events of 24 really happened. Or maybe, during a panel discussion on a particular legal subject, he seized upon an example from the world of fiction (already raised by another panel member) to illustrate the point he was trying to make about whether the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario justifies torture. During three years of law school, I had a more than a few professors use examples from popular fiction to illustrate the legal principles we were discussing.
No, he's still deranged. If he was making a logical case he would begin by throwing out the idea that 24 has any merit as a legal precedent. In fact, he could have reasonably been indignant at being compared to the writers of a fictional TV show. Instead he went off on a rant, defending Jack Bauer within the context of the show, and still expected us to believe that this somehow had any relationship to the real world.

The Canadian judge may as well have countered with, "Yes, but people who torture wander off into the jungle, get captured by crazy French ladies, and then they probably get eaten by a smoke monster. Is that what you want for America? To be eaten by a smoke monster?"
Reply
post #14 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
...Or maybe, during a panel discussion on a particular legal subject, he seized upon an example from the world of fiction (already raised by another panel member) to illustrate the point he was trying to make about whether the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario justifies torture.
The problem is that 24 is make-believe and the writers make sure that Bauer is always right to torture somebody. Every story is fixed to his favour.
Reply
post #15 of 71
6/20/07 at 7:32am
There's an interesting question here. How much does popular culture affect political culture, and vice versa? How much does popular culture affect our way of seeing the world?

We're quick to call bullshit when someone says that popular culture can influence the minds of young people (particularly when those who say it threaten to take away something we like). Yet, here is an example of popular culture influencing the mind of an adult. Perhaps it's time for us to reexamine our position on popular culture and its societal influence.
Reply
post #16 of 71
6/20/07 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
The specter of the mushroom cloud and the "ticking time bomb" are to Scalia and his ilk as Natalie Portman and Jessica Biel are to most chewers in the sex forum. The distillation of that fantasy into the scenarios 24 paints is entertaining but ultimately science fiction. Hearing it invoked by a Supreme Court Justice is f%$#&^% terrifying.
Mmmm, Natalie Portman and Jessica Biel...

What? Oh, politics. Yeah. Right. I'm with you.

I think everyone who's playing in this particular sandbox should see _The Battle of Algiers_. And they should see it right away.
Reply
post #17 of 71
6/20/07 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt
Scalia is obviously sympathetic to that viewpoint and I think he deserves to be called out on it. Especially considering how almost all (Ron Paul excepted) of the GOP Presidential field is trying to out-manly each other by invoking the holy name of Jack Bauer and suggesting how great torture is.
McCain came out foursquare against it.
Reply
post #18 of 71
6/20/07 at 8:03am
Did 24 really affect the mind of a Supreme Justice? i hardly think so, unless Scalia really is insane.

But popular culture has always been utilised as a propaganda tool, geared towards the young and the lesser educated members of the public.

I think it's naive to the extreme to be an avid watcher of 24 and not realise that there is a political agenda being promoted through that show. Bauer is always right torturing people and torturing people is always the best, safest way to get information. Liberals are whiny and almost certainly wrong. Some are gay. Amnesty International's job is to defend terrorists. Foreigners are not to be trusted.

But the main problem is that Bauer is always on the money and what he does always pays off. Therefore, you can't really blame him for anything he does. It's the thing the South Park boys made fun of when Cartman's bigotry saved the town from a nuclear holocaust.
Reply
post #19 of 71
6/20/07 at 9:52am
Now who said Canada was boring ?

We too have clusterfuck crazy conservative.
Reply
post #20 of 71
6/20/07 at 12:20pm
Insane would be Scalia saying, "Torture is fine because it always turns out okay when Jack Bauer does it."

Instead, Scalia was asking if we should be adopting the absolute that torture is never appropriate. A lot people who do not accept this absolute use the extreme scenario of the "ticking time bomb" to justify a belief that some form of torture could be acceptable in that circumstance. The popular show 24 has used that scenario repeatedly, people on the panel were familiar with the show, and Scalia used that familiar example to challenge the panel about the question of absolutes.

Using the example of the jury, Scalia was making the point that it would be very tough to find a jury who would want to convict someone like a Jack Bauer of torturing a suspect if that torture led to the prevention of a nuclear bomb detonating on American soil. If that is true, the question then becomes, "If the majority of society would not convict someone of that crime, should our criminal law reflect the wishes of the majority on this matter?"

See, right or wrong, these are the tough questions we ask our top judges to address and answer logically and dispassionately.
Reply
post #21 of 71
6/20/07 at 12:49pm
The problem with the 24 scenario as an illustration, as has been pointed out, is that 1) a TV can and is rigged so the hero's actions are always justified, and 2) the "torture stops a ticking time bomb" scenario has yet to occur, and it's not for a lack of torturing going on.
Reply
post #22 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Using the example of the jury, Scalia was making the point that it would be very tough to find a jury who would want to convict someone like a Jack Bauer of torturing a suspect if that torture led to the prevention of a nuclear bomb detonating on American soil. If that is true, the question then becomes, "If the majority of society would not convict someone of that crime, should our criminal law reflect the wishes of the majority on this matter?"

See, right or wrong, these are the tough questions we ask our top judges to address and answer logically and dispassionately.
But we seem to be ignoring the fact that we ARE using torture RIGHT NOW, and none of it is stopping a nuclear warhead from going off in Los Angeles. These trite 'what if' arguments about "what jury would convict Jack Bauer" dilute the very real and immediate consequences of our torture policies. I don't find any Jack Bauer scenarios to be "tough questions" at all.
Reply
post #23 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:06pm
Torture is either okay or it isn't (hint: It isn't!). There's no fucking halfsies on torture.
Reply
post #24 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:13pm
Reply
post #25 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:36pm
There's an easy answer to all this: Torture is never appropriate.
Reply
post #26 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:50pm
Then the question becomes, "What is torture?"

As I've said a few times on here, I actually respect Scalia a great deal, even though I disagree with his stance on most issues. The guy is a brilliant legal mind and a damn fine writer, especially his dissents.

I don't *think* he meant this discussion the way some of you are taking it, but if he did...wow.
Reply
post #27 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:54pm
Eh, I don't care that Scalia is using an extreme example to make something resembling a point. His reasoning is irresponsible and misleading. Not to mention it shows how intellectually bereft he can be. All of this leads me to believe that a lot of these die-hard conservatives, just sit around thinking of ways to reaffirm their prejudiced (word carefully chosen) and ignorant beliefs.
Reply
post #28 of 71
6/20/07 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Sutton
Then the question becomes, "What is torture?"
Come on. We spend over half a century not torturing people then the Neo-cons start their war and decide they like it rough and suddenly we act like it's impossible to define torture?
Reply
post #29 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
There's an easy answer to all this: Torture is never appropriate.
Well, not 'never'.

"The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." P.E. Trudeau, quoting the Globe And Mail.
Reply
post #30 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:07pm
What torture is, according to the US legal code.
Reply
post #31 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
McCain came out foursquare against it.
You're right, I forgot. But, 1) McCain is a chief architect of Military Commissions Act, which puts us all in harms way with its cavalier removal of habeas, and 2)I'm really loathe to give anyone credit for taking an anti-torture position because it is a position any civilized person should have. That being said, it seems to be a concept that missed most of the GOP field.

But yes, credit where credit is due.
Reply
post #32 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
What torture is, according to the US legal code.
There you go.
Reply
post #33 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:17pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Instead, Scalia was asking if we should be adopting the absolute that torture is never appropriate. A lot people who do not accept this absolute use the extreme scenario of the "ticking time bomb" to justify a belief that some form of torture could be acceptable in that circumstance. The popular show 24 has used that scenario repeatedly, people on the panel were familiar with the show, and Scalia used that familiar example to challenge the panel about the question of absolutes.
Torture is wrong, period. The American people might agree with it, and it might even lead to happy results (like disarming a nuclear weapon or getting my fucking DVDs returned) but the state can never condone or endorse it, and when one its agents commits brutal and degrading acts, that agent should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That is the absolute and we should not abridge it, because to abridge that idea, and accept that a little bit of torture every now and again -- but only for A REAL GOOD REASON -- brings this horrible practice into acceptance, and that places us all in danger. As you can see from the recent GOP debates, those assholes don't think anything is wrong with torture, holding people indefinitely, and find that due process of law is rather irritating and should be stepped over when manly men, like Jack Bauer, deem it appropriate. That is what's wrong with Scalia's opinion and discussion: the removal of certain absolute taboos from civilized society harm all of us in the end. He, as an intelligent man, who's seemingly devoted his life to the protection and preservation of the Constitution and the principals this country was founded on, should recognize that and understand that and should say, along with everyone else in the civilized fucking world, that torture is wrong, no matter when and why it happens.
Reply
post #34 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:20pm
When is it torture? When it starts to fucking hurt, that's when. I'm sick of talking semantics about this bullshit. Scalia's an asshole.
Reply
post #35 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:21pm
If it's so damn important, by all means torture someone in order to save the US. Then suffer the consequences of your actions: go to court and argue your case.

The guy with the password or the location of the bomb will still lie, by the way.
Reply
post #36 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:23pm
That statute, as statutes tend to do, leaves a tremendous amount of wiggle room and grey area. I'm not advocating torture in any way. I'm completely against it. I'm just talking completely from a legal perspective, not a moral one.
Reply
post #37 of 71
6/20/07 at 2:26pm
It leaves a little wiggle room. Enough to allow the Bush Administration to argue that what they're doing isn't illegal because of where they do it. There's a reason Camp X-Ray or whatever is in Cuba.
Reply
post #38 of 71
6/20/07 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt
Antonin Scalia, making the US proud...From the Globe and Mail..
Here...



God Scalia pisses me off. Grudgingly, I had some respect for the man. No more. Do these idiots understand that 24 IS A FUCKING TV SHOW??? A WORK OF GODDAMNED FICTION!!!? If one more conservative offers up 24 as an excuse to torture, detain, and otherwise erode our civil liberties, I'm going to stick my head through a wall...
Not wanting to rain on anyone's parade, but Scalia wasn't gthe one who raised the "24" question.

I disagree with his standpoint wholeheartedly, but don't blame him for bringing the subject up!
Reply
post #39 of 71
6/20/07 at 3:24pm
Scalia turned a jokey comment by another judge into a rant, justifying Bauer's actions as if he were a real person.
Reply
post #40 of 71
6/20/07 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
If it's so damn important, by all means torture someone in order to save the US. Then suffer the consequences of your actions: go to court and argue your case.
To an extent, isn't this what Scalia was saying? If a Bauer-analog tortured a suspect and gained info that prevented a nuclear catastrophe, and said Bauer-analog went before a jury, very few juries would find him guilty.

FWIW, I find Seabass' stance to be the proper one (and I've found many conservatives who feel likewise): torture should never be allowed as an official policy, but any individual should do what he feels he must, and accept the consequences afterwards.
Reply
post #41 of 71
6/20/07 at 5:15pm
You're a disgusting human being.
Reply
post #42 of 71
6/20/07 at 5:22pm
We're all aware of your black and white worldview, Brad. I'm pro-rape, too, remember?
Reply
post #43 of 71
6/20/07 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
To an extent, isn't this what Scalia was saying? If a Bauer-analog tortured a suspect and gained info that prevented a nuclear catastrophe, and said Bauer-analog went before a jury, very few juries would find him guilty.
No doubt that's true. But what say we put off the legal debate about what the courts should do with a real-life Jack Bauer until we actually have a real-life Jack Bauer, okay? Believe it or not, there's a requirement for the Supreme Court to rule on an issue that there actually be a case before them where the parties are arguing it.

In other words, 24 presents the justice system with an interesting but far-fetched "what if?" scenario to ponder. But their time would probably be better spent analyzing and debating the plethora of actual torture cases that are available to them thanks to everybody's favorite War On.
Reply
post #44 of 71
6/20/07 at 5:43pm
1) It was a panel discussion, and those discussions often go off on weird tangents. That's one of the cool things about them. And what-if/worst-case scenarios are always fair game. There's no evidence of extraterrestrial life, but you can be sure every government on Earth has discussed how the world might react if such evidence (or an outright threat) appeared.

2) Scalia didn't raise the issue, he was responding to someone who did.
Reply
post #45 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
In other words, 24 presents the justice system with an interesting but far-fetched "what if?" scenario to ponder. But their time would probably be better spent analyzing and debating the plethora of actual torture cases that are available to them thanks to everybody's favorite War On.

99.99% of law school is responding to ludicrous examples in order to expand upon our current understanding. You have to stretch reality in order to figure out the vagaries and gaps in current precedent/statutory law. Responding to extreme examples is actually time very well spent for a panel or a discussion. Scalia will have plenty of time to respond on an actual issue before the court in a manner I'm sure we will all hate.

Just to note an example, I actually had an exam in my 1st year Criminal Law class that consisted of a Halloween party where:

A man dressed up as a giant penis.

6 Nuns at the party died of heartattacks upon seeing the giant penis.

Among other things that were completely batshit insane.
Reply
post #46 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:13pm
It's just that this damn Jack Bauer meme keeps coming up constantly, as if it's already understood that the American people implicitly approve of torture because they keep cheering for that heroic Jack Bauer on the teevee. It's even been mentioned in the Republican presidential debates. That some of us get kinda peeved when it keeps being mentioned in the national discourse is completely understandable, if you ask me.
Reply
post #47 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Sutton
99.99% of law school is responding to ludicrous examples in order to expand upon our current understanding.
I'm aware of this, having just finished first year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Sutton
You have to stretch reality in order to figure out the vagaries and gaps in current precedent/statutory law.
Not in the case of torture, you don't. There are hundreds if not thousands of real cases of torture over the last decade or so that would shed light on these vagaries and gaps more than adequately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Sutton
Responding to extreme examples is actually time very well spent for a panel or a discussion.
Reality is extreme enough in this case; the courts certainly seem unable to deal with it, so what good is it to bring in even more outlandish scenarios into the argument?

To clarify, I don't think that Scalia's nuts for using 24 to make a legal point. I think he's wrong for using 24 to make this point. It's not the first time I've heard this show used to justify torture, and it's a retarded, straw-man argument to make. The kind of bullshit that anybody who works in law should be able to spot a mile away, much less a SC justice.
Reply
post #48 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:26pm
Fair enough. I've only watched about 5 minutes of 24, but I've heard that Rush Limbaugh loves the show, so that's enough for me not to watch it.

And Jacob, I too have heard the Jack Bauer example brought up numerous times recently. It does seem kind of weird that they would make a TV character such a widespread example.

I'm waiting for the Symposium on the Proper Use of Paper Clips and have someone bring up Macgyver.
Reply
post #49 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:34pm
Also, it's not like 24 invented the ticking timebomb scenario, it's just currently a very visible piece of pop culture that illustrates the point. I'm sure the "Is torture justified if it prevents a catastrophe?" argument existed long before Jack Bauer.
Reply
post #50 of 71
6/20/07 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
I'm sure the "Is torture justified if it prevents a catastrophe?" argument existed long before Jack Bauer.
It did, but it didn't have such a popular, dramatic, and skewed (as metnitioned earlier, it's easy to justify the hero's actions when you have complete control over the villains' thoughts and actions as well) example for those who oppose accountability to cling to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scalia Loves Jack Bauer