...The rest of the panelists at the conference actually argued the point. One barrister even said of Jack Bauer, "I'm sure I could get him off [on charges of violating anti-torture laws]." You'd think they were completely ignorant of the proper way to argue against torture – scream, call names, and demonize your opponents.

As near as I can tell from the news report (so far, I've only found one report in the Toronto Globe and Mail), the rest of the panelists actually debated the merits of extreme methods, and whether they would be justified if the result was saving a city from nuclear attack.

Do they not know the received doctrine? Do they not know that torture doesn't work, no matter how effective it may have been in news reports? They must not have gotten the memo.

(Fortunately, the terrorists who spilled the details of the plot to blow up the Library building, and the terrorists who told troops where IED factories could be found, also didn't get the memo. In their ignorance, they told what they knew.)

Seriously, though, it looks like the panel was discussing a hypothetical case that happened to be depicted in a popular TV show. Gods forbid that any serious legal scholar should ever discuss a hypothetical case, especially one pulled from the popular media.

And since the whole panel discussed this hypothetical case as if it were a worthy topic of discussion, I suspect we should regard any conclusion on the part of any panelist as completely illegitimate.

And in particular:

While Judge Scalia argued that doomsday scenarios may well lead to the reconsideration of rights, in his legal decisions he has also said that catastrophic attacks and intelligence imperatives do not automatically give the U.S. president a blank cheque - the people have to decide.
I guess we must conclude the President does have a blank cheque, and the people have no say in the matter.

I've had my say, and I'll be looking for any further reports on this conference. In the mean time, feel free to return to your screaming.