How to subvert a law

OK, disclaimer: I am by no means a legal expert, let alone an expert in US law. But then again, neither is A. Scalia. Unless in the US ‘legal expert’ means to be able subvert a law that says that torture is prohibited, and re-shaping it as saying that torture as a form of punishment, is prohibited. I.e., if you’re being tortured by someone, by no better reason that he felt like it (i.e. he’s not in any way punishing you for something you did), then that’s allowed!! And the cherry on top of the cake: he can even afford to claim that “That’s my view, and it happens to be correct”! US? Leaders of the free world??! Right…

Here’s the tube:

Even a child would instinctively see the flaw in his reasoning: if torture is always excessive punishment, that is, even when there is something to punish for, then it’s obvious that it is still even more excessive and disproportionate when being carried out without a reason to perform any sort of punishment in the first place! And yet, this is precisely what Scalia has publicly stated. The Founding Fathers may well be nauseating in their graves…

I think that it was John Locke who once said that when law ends, tyranny begins. While this may not be the end of law in America, it resembles it far too closely.

PS: Thanks to Pedro for the link to the tube


Os comentários estão fechados.