Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’

by zipdadoda | April 28, 2008 at 01:47 pm | 338 views | 3 comments

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...

Flag this story

Upload

Make your good story a great story. Click here to add your photos & video to this story.

Crowd Power

Scan the web to add photos and videos to this story or add them from the NowPublic Archive.

politisite

at 19:27 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

azzayindia

at 00:54 on April 29th, 2008

good stuff:

zipdadoda, I like this story. It's good stuff.

zipdadoda

at 07:49 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!