Justice exhibits tortuous logic

Re “Scalia accepts infliction of pain to get key information,” Feb. 13

All Americans should know that if they ever fall into enemy hands and are tortured, at least one Supreme Court justice is OK with it. For Justice Antonin Scalia to say Europeans are self-righteous when they criticize use of the death penalty in the U.S., by pointing out the fact that they also had the death penalty 30 years ago, is like justifying slavery because it was legal in the U.S. 150 years ago. I thought Supreme Court justices were suppose to have some intelligence.

Phil Wilt

Van Nuys

I am outraged to read that Scalia has announced his approval of torture to obtain information. How low have we sunk? The terrorists have won when we give up our ideals.

Information obtained from torture is notoriously unreliable. Anyone being tortured will eventually tell his tormentors whatever he thinks they want to hear. Our government has signed international agreements repudiating torture in all forms. And from our own Constitution: What part of “cruel and unusual” does Scalia not understand? Torture is illegal.

To think that one of our supposedly preeminent legal minds could be so morally unhinged is truly frightening. I call on Scalia to resign and Congress to strongly censure his remarks.

Michael S. Callaway

Mira Loma, Calif.

The Constitution provides protection to everyone under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Long before Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court, the court overturned a conviction based on evidence obtained by involuntary stomach pumping (Rochin vs. California, 1952). The test is whether the conduct is so egregious that it “shocks the conscience” (Sacramento vs. Lewis, 1998). This can only be determined by weighing the government’s interest against the rights of the individual.

Would anyone quarrel with torturing a subject who admittedly buried alive a 6-year-old child, was apprehended and refused to provide the location in time to save the victim? I hope not. As a lawyer who faced a comparable dilemma representing a police officer in Chavez vs. Martinez (2003), the case was remanded by the Supreme Court for trial to determine if Oxford police officer Ben Chavez’s conduct shocked the conscience. Properly applying the law to “all the facts,” the jury unanimously agreed that the government’s interests outweighed the individual’s rights. Hope springs eternal.

Alan Wisotsky

Westlake Village