How does he comes to the conclusion that torture could be constitutional, given that:

A. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention

B. According to Article 6 of the Constitution, we are bound to the treaties we sign.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Why does a layperson need to explain this to a supreme court justice?

Posted at March 6, 2008 12:09 PM in response to Scalia on Torture: "Not Everything That Is Bad Is Unconstitutional"