Congratulations, Prof. Zaring, for putting up what could be the champ of ambiguous law blog posts.

Is this a critique of Justice Scalia?

Are you staking out a position on constitutional law?

Foreign policy?

What is your point?

Scalia occasionally says some brilliant things. This isn't one of them. He's inherently limited by his Constitution-idolatry. There are other factors that inform the American experience (and law). Even if there weren't, "Originalists" hardly own the Constitution.
McCain, who I'm sure we all know is an authority on the matter of torture having suffered it and more recently been instrumental in enacting legislation prohibiting it, had a different take. He asserted that if one is willing to pay the price, one can break the law. If this were really to come into play, Jack Bauer would always be acquitted (assuming he's good enough at his job to be right), whereas Nazi-ish sheep "only following orders" (as Mukasey and the like seem to place such a premium on) would incur the justifiable wrath of the state. Did the founders think it was o.k. to slap a guy around a bit to get some necessary information? Who cares? Scalia's approach is more and more an exercise in academics, divorced from the real concerns of today and more suited to the history department than our nation's highest Court. While a pragmatist would rightfully recognize that he's 1/9th a "decider," oral arguments in Boumediene reveal that his vote is cast before cert is even granted. That being the case, it's probably best to focus on Justices with an open mind and a legit methodology.