Justice is Blind, Deaf and Dumb.

LONDON - One of the United States' top judges said in an interview Tuesday that interrogators can inflict pain to obtain critical information about an imminent terrorist threat. And because we don't know when a terrorist threat is imminent, due to the secretive nature of terrorist threats, we can inflict pain on anyone at any time.

*

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that aggressive interrogation could be appropriate, even if used against a standing President. Such interrogation could be used to learn where a bomb was hidden shortly before it was set to explode or to discover the plans or whereabouts of a terrorist group.

*

"It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that." Scalia told reporters when asked about the prospect of obtaining critical information from a resurrected, terrorist messiah.

*

Scalia said that determining when physical coercion could come into play was a difficult question. "How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be? I don't think these are easy questions at all, in either direction."

*

"In fact," he added "...without knowing how close the threat is there is no basis to hold back from maximum torture." Then, rubbing a whetstone along a stilletto, he said "And as for how severe the infliction of pain can be ... how am I to know what is in the mind of another? I think the existentialists demonstrated the absurdity of such an argument."

*

U.S. interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, have been the subject of growing debate in the United States, where some citizens have argued that they would rather not know about such practices and a more vocal opposition group has argued that we will not be safe until everyone is waterboarded.

*

Waterboarding could play an exciting role in the military trials of six men charged in connection with the Sept. 11, attacks. The issue also could find its way to the Supreme Court, where Justices Ginsburg and Stevens are most likely to be waterboarded.

*

Scalia, referred generally to those methods as "so-called torture," and said practices prohibited by the Constitution in the context of the criminal justice system -- including indefinite detention -- are readily allowed in other situations, such as when a witness refuses to answer a question in court. "Therefore, I believe we should start waterboarding witnesses who refuse to answer questions."

*

"I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture," he said in the interview. "Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited by the Constitution? Or who is a witch?"

*

"Is it obvious, that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to the society? I think it's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth." Scalia, a judicial icon among American conservatives, an acerbic wit and often abrasive personality, said Europeans had no business "smugly" decrying those techniques as torture, if they know what is good for them.

*

Earlier in the interview he also faced down criticism of the U.S. death penalty."Europeans get really quite self-righteous, you know, (saying) 'no civilized society uses it.' They used it themselves -- 30 years ago," he said, adding that a majority of Europeans probably supported capital punishment in their homes and workplaces.

*

Scalia said that neither he nor any of the eight other Supreme Court justices who collectively make up the United States' highest court should be seen as setting the moral tone for the international community. "In fact, with few exceptions, we should be waterboarded ourselves to make sure none of us are withholding critical information."

*

"I don't look to their law, why do they look to mine?" he said smugly.

*

"We don't pretend to be Western mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world," he said in the broadcast. "We pretend to be Western Jesuses who decide what is right for Christians and that all others will burn in hell for all eternity."

*

Scalia also took issue with his "tough guy" reputation, placing his thumbnail below his upper teeth and making a flicking gesture towards reporters.

Safe and Secure

The news this morning was wonderful. Right before Thanksgiving travel they have a news story on how some government agents managed to sneak by TSA agents at the airport with liquid explosives and other explosives. They then show how the government agents later joined together the explosive components in a car and showed the effects on the car. And the newscasters wondered are we safe? And why are we not safe after spending so many millions of dollars on air safety.

Ah such is the nature of an asymmetrical threat. A determined threat can penetrate even a comprehensive defense. What the newscasters will never ask is "is it ever possible for something to be completely safe?" or "at what cost is total safety possible?" My guess for No. 1 is no. I just don't think anything like air travel can be completely safe. I mean you are in a giant metal tube thousands of miles above the earth, with the laws of gravity still in effect and with parts of that giant tube that are not filled with people or unknown cargo, filled with jet fuel. I mean come on. You can certainly screen the passengers and screen the cargo, but you can't possibly hope to eliminate every threat all of the time. Who knows what someone will come up with to get past metal detectors, bomb sniffing equipment and body cavity checks. With regard to the second question I can only believe that the cost of total safety is prohibitively expensive. And I'm not sure total safety is really worth a lot of the non-economic costs I would be expected to pay. Once people are scanned and frisked and asked to travel without bags, maybe we would all be safer, but I think most of my travel would get cancelled at that point.

*

Part of the problem seems to me to be the particular nature of air travel. You don't hear stories about terrorists running trains into buildings. Trains run on tracks you see. And even when they blow a train up (see Spain) its not likely to take out more than the terminal. Better to bomb-proof a terminal than to waste a bunch of time and money screening everyone and mounting anti-aircraft defenses on tall buildings. But hey planes are so cool.

*

I guess in the big scheme of things, I don't really worry about another 9/11. I care that it doesn't happen of course. I am just not willing to stay in my house afraid anymore. I am sure something like 9/11 will happen again, and I hope next time we respond appropriately, then stop. I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the idea that we need to make everything so safe that nothing bad ever happens to us. I guess FDR was right.

Sick

I am not sure if I will be able to watch the President's address tonight.

*

When I passed the bar, I took an oath as an officer of the court to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I believe the president has violated the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter. I believe his continued presence in office is aConstitutional if not un-Constitutional. I believe he is diametrically opposed to what the Constitution stands for.

*

I was going nuts the other night listening to the Republicans mention that we can not leave Iraq without "honor." I don't know what honor is anymore I guess. Are we supposed to leave with the thanks and support of the Iraqi government.? That would seem to be a hollow gesture from a hollow government. Are we supposed to leave with the thanks and support of the Iraqi people? That is looking increasingly impossible. Are we supposed to leave Iraq a pro-Western democratic state? How exactly is that supposed to happen? Are we supposed to leave Iraq after all the insurgents are dead? Hell, I watched Red Dawn, I'd be an insurgent if someone invaded my country. After all the Iraqis are dead? Why use troops then? After all the Muslim extremists are dead? Are we getting rid of the Christian extremists then too? Isn't a Muslim always an extremist according to some Christian extremist? Are we supposed to get rid of all the Muslims? Again shouldn't we be using bigger bombs then? Are we supposed to leave with the oil? What honor are we supposed to leave with?

*

Maybe I should just write about Disneyland soon.

A Lynching

As a Falcons fan, it is weird to have mixed emotions about Michael Vick. I guess its the same way I felt about him for the last few years though.

But at least it gets me thinking. And I can't help thinking - every black man who f's up on some B.S. like fighting dogs, dealing drugs, using drugs or gang banging is getting lynched just the same as if Forrest and his knights rode into town.

Living right next to the ghetto of a major American city I couldn't help but notice the liquor stores, smoke stores, pay day loan stores and vacant lots. Try to find a fresh fruit store in a black ghetto. There is no doubt in my mind that the culture of the black intercity has been fostered by inaction (at best) by the white community. After all we can't lynch black people any more. But if we allow them to kill eachother, through inaction or legerdemain - that's different. No fingerprints. And we can even point the finger at our willing accomplices - see who ruined that black guy's life - that other black guy. And so it is two for the price of one.

I had a conversation with my wife today about a friend of the family, an 8 year old. 14 year old boys in his community are urging the 8 year-olds to fight. Preparing them for their future. And the 14 year-olds get a little entertainment value out of the whole thing. And I can't help thinking, these boys are helping the old guard white racists more than they can possibly imagine. I mean if they won't pick cotton, then they will die or rot in jail. Is there any understanding of who set up the system that they live in, of who is pulling the strings? I suppose the lack of quality schools cements the ignorance.

I've always thought that the ultimate expression of entrenched discrimination is when you can create infighting amongst the discriminated, and thus operate "hands-free." The discriminator can then merely say - "this is not of my doing, look how they fight themselves." Today I waffle between whether blacks or women are more discriminated against.

... and Taxes

Fitting that a day after Death, I should write about taxes. We did our taxes on Monday night. Of course both of us had looked them over a month or so ago. We had a few hiccups figuring out a couple things. Otherwise, following the instructions from our tax software was fairly easy. I remembered at the last minute that we had installed some insulation and some windows when we remodeled the kitchen and it felt responsible and good to take a tax credit on that.

I really never understood complaining too much about taxes. I mean I can understand some spirited discussion about the tax brackets, the constitutionality of income taxes and the obvious discourse we all need to have about the level of services we want, how to fund them and the problem of graft. But assuming the status quo, if your taxes are high that means you are making money. The more money you make, the higher your taxes are. When faced with the very real possibility of making nothing any given year, I'll take taxes thank you.

*

I remember taking Tax Law in law school. Basically, the key issue in that class was how to reduce a client's taxable income. My answer was make less, own less. Every other answer is what is wrong with the system. Sure you can depreciate assets, carry over losses, etc. etc. etc. But if you really hate paying taxes more than you love making money, there solution is right there for you. Making money is okay, paying taxes hurts the bank account a little, but theoretically, I can't help but think that my added tax burden correlates directly to my income and my relative purchasing power. My problem is that I can't find a way to correlate my income to my happiness. Ease maybe, but not happiness.

Death

It is a strange time at home. My four year old is asking a lot about death. It is hard to know how to answer his questions. And though we haven't exactly been letting him watch the news coverage of VA Tech, death is everywhere around us. Only the most whitewashed cartoons do not depict injury or death, and those are hard to come by at times.

Without strong religious beliefs, it is a struggle to answer questions. It takes a lot of mental agility. I have just resorted to telling him that most people live into their 80s (given the current life expectancy in the US) and that that is a long time to live. Since one of his schoolmate's parents died from cancer I have also explained that some people die when they get really sick or are badly hurt. He wants to find a way to keep both mom and dad and the cat and himself alive forever. I just explain that we are trying our best to keep him from getting sick or hurt and teaching him how to keep himself from getting sick or hurt. With regard to dying, I haven't said too much except that living a good life is important and then getting old or sick or hurt is not as bad.

As far as I can tell he just thinks people go away when they die. Since I haven't found the truth to be much different I haven't elaborated on that.

The 300

I saw the movie last weekend. I don't see many movies these days. My four year old likes to watch the movie Cars on a loop and my wife and I don't get out for dates too much these days.

I liked it. But I had a long discussion with close friends who don't like it. I understand why. One of my good friends noted immediately that the discussion about the Spartans being free and democratic was a half-truth of the worst kind. The Spartans, I have read operated in a part-democratic, part-feudalistic, part-totalitarian society. Aside from the serfs, some were also slave owners. The society was obviously organized along martial lines, which is clearly depicted in the movie.

Another friend, who is a brilliant movie critic, thought there was nothing redeeming in the movie. He believed it bordered on pro-fascist propaganda. He noted, correctly I think, that the main democratic body depicted in the film was incompetent and that only the strong leader could cut through that bodies inaction to command his society and organize it for war.

I don't disagree with any of their comments. We also discussed the fact that the Persians in the movie were depicted as deformed, homoerotic, mystical and perverted. Such a depiction was obviously heavy-handed with no basis in historical fact.

I value the opinions of my friends. Unfortunately, one of my first comments was - is anybody going to realize where Persia is? (and equate this film with the current political climate).

I think our conversation was right and wrong at the same time. What have we reduced ourselves to when our argument becomes (1) will people be stupid enough to realize what this movie means? or (2) will people be stupid enough to be influenced by this movie? How are either one of these positions persuasive?

Hopefully, the movie can be isolated and enjoyed for what it is. A fictionalized account of a single battle. Most good histories will note that the significance attributed to the battle has long been overemphasized. I avoided the political and philosophical implications of the movie, because I think they do not translate well. Sparta after all did not develop into a lasting world power. My only coherent comment, was that perhaps people will watch the movie and start asking questions about the Greeks and the Persians and history. They will learn that history has a tendency to repeat itself.

If all else fails, watch this film once and follow with V for Vendetta.