Comments on: Justice Antonin Scalea says that TORTURE is NOT PUNISHMENT. http://www.realdemocracyinamerica.com/blog/justice-antonin-scalea-says-that-torture-is-not-punishment/ The United States of America - a Publicly Traded Corporation? Now, that would be THE REAL CHANGE WE NEED. Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:32:15 +0000 hourly 1 By: pclemins http://www.realdemocracyinamerica.com/blog/justice-antonin-scalea-says-that-torture-is-not-punishment/comment-page-1/#comment-14 pclemins Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:07:35 +0000 http://realdemocracyinamerica.com/blog/?p=27#comment-14 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. 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.

]]>