On 60 Minutes last night, Justice Antonin Scalea was asked by Leslie Stahl if torture was unconstitutional based on the United States Constitution’s prohibition against “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”.
Scalea’s answer, “Torture is not punishment. What are you punishing someone for? You’re not punishing someone when you torture them.”
Leslie Stahl was so shocked she had no come back. She should have said, “So since torture is not PUNISHMENT, then it’s some kind of reward for doing something good?”
The interview then turned to Scalea’s children, he has nine, and his grandchildren, there are 27 of these.
One of his sons is a soldier. I hope and pray that his son is never REWARDED by some enemy nation who wants to torture him for information.
The only reason I am bothered enough about this interview to blog about it is that it points out the problem in this country that we have with CONSERVATIVES. There’s nothing wrong about being conservative, but when you are so conservative that you have lost your soul, the conservative position runs afoul of everything that is GOOD about humanity.
Of course TORTURE is punishment. And, it is cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited under the United States Constitution, Mr. Scalea. Just because you sir, want to torture people and probably relish it, doesn’t make it right.
What are the procedures for impeaching a Supreme Court Justice. Please look that up and get back to me on that one. If there was any one on the Supreme Court who deserves to be removed for office not only for not understanding the document he is sworn to uphold, but also in conspiring to tear it up and render it irrelevant. American democracy is not, and will never be irrelevant in our lives, but one Supreme Court Justice who never read it, sure is to me.
Stumble It!
One Comment
I happen to agree that torture is not necessarily punishment although this is obviously an interpretation issue. A quick lookup of ‘punishment’ provides two definitions… (1) suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution and (2) severe, rough, or disastrous treatment. Torture obviously satisfies number (2), but it does not necessarily satisfy (1) because it is does not necessarily serve as retribution. And, in the context of the question, which was as an interrogation technique, torture is not retribution for doing something wrong. In addition, ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ has traditionally been applied to our judicial system and our citizens, NOT international conflict… that is what the Geneva Convention is for, which does outlaw torture.
I personally believe (and I think we can agree) we, i.e. the USA, should take the high moral road and not use torture as an interrogation technique even though our political enemies may use it. But it’s not necessarily punishment and not therefore not outlawed in the Constitution. I agree with Scalea in that if you want a law to outlaw it, make it, and I think we should. The Supreme Court’s role is NOT to make laws, but interpret the ones that are already there.