wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Steve from Manhattan February 12, 2008 - 10:13AM

  Ask him about Scalia's BBC interview:

  To begin with the constitution... is referring to punishment for crime. And, for example, incarcerating someone indefinitely would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime."

  Justice Scalia argued that courts could take stronger measures when a witness refused to answer questions.

  "I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?" he asked.

  "It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that. And once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game.

  "How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?"

  
  
• [2] eCAHNomics February 12, 2008 - 10:14AM

  Ahem. The fix is in on the 9/11 trials. The defense lawyers know that their careers will end if they vigorously defend their clients.

  
  
• [3] John from Manhattan February 12, 2008 - 10:15AM

  Your guest says he can't believe we're holding detainees indefinitely with no charges, and he can't believe he's living to see it.

  What about holding soldiers as POWs (Civil War, WWII)? They were held for the duration of the war with no charges. What if the Civil war went on for 20 years?

  
  
• [4] BORED February 12, 2008 - 10:16AM

  This all seems fishy to me.