It is an interesting question
Where is the intersection of natural rights here?
I agree with Scalia in that the Constitution is silent on the matter, as it deals with the rights of Citizens - not foreigners. The bigger question is this: if you know that a foreign assailant intends to perpetrate an attack on the Citizens of the United States, how far is one able to go to stop that attack?
I agree with Scalia in that the Constitution is silent on the matter, as it deals with the rights of Citizens - not foreigners. The bigger question is this: if you know that a foreign assailant intends to perpetrate an attack on the Citizens of the United States, how far is one able to go to stop that attack?
As for your bigger question... I don't know. I feel like you're bringing up a hypothetical, extreme scenario to justify the routine use of torture. How many of the people who the CIA tortured knew where the nuclear bomb was hidden in LA?
And I haven't justified it, only asked the question: how far is one allowed to go under the rules of natural rights? Does one sacrifice all claim to those rights when one initiates the means of a massive violation of others' rights? Does one who engages in attempted mass murder retain any claim on their rights after so egregiously violating the responsibilities that go with them?
It very well may be an absurd example, but that is how many logical theories are tested: by proposing the absurd to see if the moral extends to cover it. If the answer is no, we question the universality of the moral. If the answer is yes, we conclude by affirming the moral.
The question still remains: once someone has forfeited their rights by implementing a plan to kill or otherwise assault the freedoms of others, what is allowed to attempt to prevent the fruition of the plan?