Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’
Share: 
by zipdadoda | April 28, 2008 at 09:47 am
397 views | 2 Recommendations | 3 comments
Videos
Apparently NOT! How could it violate it if it isn’t punishment?
Last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted his interview, to Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes.
There he explained that the torture of detainees does not violate the 8th Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because, according to Scalia, torture is not used as punishment: watch the video...
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
zipdadoda
naptown, Florida, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 15:27 on April 28th, 2008
While Justice Scalia doesn't help himself much by his brash responces, Cruel and unusual punishment has a history going back to 1688 and found in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Punishment is in responce to a crime. Just because he is unwilling to define punishment with tourture does not mean he is for tourture as he clearly stated early in the video he is not.
I ask what is the usual responce to a terrorist with information that could save lives? Lets get it closer to you as an individual, what would be the usual responce if someone were about to injure your family member? The question is much more complicated than one can present in a sound bite. By the way, anyone who has gone to law school knows that these terms, Cruel, Unusual, and punishment have a very long definition then one would like.
Just to get it right, I concur with the Geneva Conventions
at 20:54 on April 28th, 2008
zipdadoda, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 03:49 on April 29th, 2008
Responding to: politisite to a terrorist with information that could save lives? Lets get it closer to you
When Reverend Wright makes the statement "the chickens are coming home to roost", we are offended that an American would dare question our motivation of why we have acted the way we have in past conflicts. War is war and sometimes its not pretty. But we have an underlying conviction that we are motivated by a higher yearning. "To be a shining beacon on a hill".
Allowing our leaders to change the fundamental precepts that this country is founded on for the sake of maybe avoiding the loss of a few lives, is not a sufficient legal argument.
We allow guns in our society despite the daily loss of lives. Because it is our right to be armed in this free society.
This leadership is changing all the values we hold dear. They are unwilling to investigate as police agencies are required. They are acting like a police state in a banana republic.
If someone is killed in your neighborhood, you wouldn't allow our whole society to be changed for the sake of saving a life.
No. You would demand that the police investigate the crime and bring the responsible to justice.
Or would you. The chickens will again indeed come home to roost!