Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’ Provision? ‘No.’
Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’ Provision? ‘No.’
Last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted his first broad-based television 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:
STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
Watch it:
Scalia’s parsing of the 8th Amendment blindly ignores reports showing that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was about humiliation and punishment, not information-gathering. In 2004, the Washington Post reported MPs involved in the abuse “said detainees were beaten and sexually humiliated as punishment or for fun.” A recent New Yorker profile of one of the soldiers there confirmed that “mostly what interrogators wanted when they asked for ’special treatment’ was punishment: take away his mattress, keep him awake, take away his clothes.”
What’s more, as Human Rights First points out, torture raises other constitutional questions besides 8th Amendment violations:
[I]t seems Justice Scalia has forgotten about the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Furthermore, a court holding a witness in contempt for refusing to cooperate with a judicial proceeding is, in fact, quite different than an interrogator resorting to physical abuse when a prisoner refuses to talk.
Scalia has repeatedly latched on to the “red herring” idea of a ticking time-bomb scenario to justify torture. He approvingly cites torture-happy Jack Bauer, the fictional star of “24,” and recently he declared it would be “absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
116 Responses to “Scalia: Does Torture Violate ‘Cruel And Unusual Punishment’ Provision? ‘No.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
How does this idiot live with himself?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:26 amthe thought of the rack, hot coals, waterboarding, and bamboo spikes under fingernails makes Scalia’s mouth water.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:30 amRight, Uncle ho… prolly the only way Scalia can get a woody anymore.
Not much to snark about there, huh?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:31 amThis has to be impeached. We have never had a justice that tried to influence public policy toward events before. Imagine it being torture that he is supporting on his road show?
This is the most disgusting example that we have no laws worth keeping now. We need to recall EVERY bush appointee. We know that Bush is a traitor, and thus it makes any thing he touches is treason.
What does it take for congress to act? forgot, nothing will make them act.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:32 am…
April 28th, 2008 at 11:32 amWow. IMO, He’s Bat S__t Crazy.
This is just too creepy for words.
State-sponsored abuse is OK before conviction, just not after conviction, apparently, because if it happens before you are proven guilty, it isn’t ‘punishment’.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:33 amScalia is a Nazi. Wow.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:36 amHe also looks like Jabba the Hutt.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:37 amSCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
How about trying to get a bit of logic and lawfulness out of this fat slob? I guess it would not be torture if he was beat with a sledgehammer because he wouldn’t be being punished, only being hurt to get the nonsense out of his being.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:39 amIsn’t past time that Sutherland make a statement to remind the neo-cons that 24 is only a fictional tv show.
(I wonder if the neo-cons also believe that Buffy really was a vampire slayer)
April 28th, 2008 at 11:39 amUnbelievable….A grim sampeling of all the work this administration has accomplished…..Install wicked, evil nut job’s in every post…We need more than Blessings, we need a total house cleaning….
April 28th, 2008 at 11:40 amAgain, this man is the reason why the repubs should not be allowed to have control of this country. Basic human values do not exist in this man’s world. There is no reason for him to be deciding issues affecting the health and safety of any human being.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:41 amThat’s a good question, Fat Tony.
Why is that policeman punishing me with torture?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:42 amSo, Antonin, there is pretty much no such thing as cruel OR unusual punishment, if torture ain’t it? Whassay?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:44 amCould we possibly get ahold of Scaldingo’s university transcripts and see what grade he got in Logic?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:46 amOr who his professor was, and ask he/she WTF is wrong with their curriculum? He obviously didn’t get it…
So. Torture is not unconstitutional.
Bush v. Gore makes so much more sense now.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:47 amIt’s pretty amasing when some numbnutz pretending to be a Supreme Court justice says that people convicted of crimes such as axe-murdering pederasty are protected from torture, while mere innocents can be tortured.
I commented previously on Nino’s eedjitcy here.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 11:48 amScalia has repeatedly latched on to the “red herring” idea of a ticking time-bomb scenario to justify torture. He approvingly cites torture-happy Jack Bauer, the fictional star of “24,” and recently he declared it would be “absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face.”
Somebody needs to take away Fat Tony’s Oreos and Cheetos and pasta puttanesca and see what he thinks about torture then. He’d sing like a bird to get his hands on a Twinkie.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am“absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face.”
I bet he’d cry a different tune if this happened to him.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:48 amIn a sane world public admission of contempt, for the Constitution, would be grounds for impeachment. In a sane world.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:49 amHe’s crazy. He should have been impeached a long time ago. This is a disgrace.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:49 amU.S. Air Force Reserve Colonel Steve Kleinman, a longtime military interrogator, testified to the House in November that torture would be “unnecessary” even in such scenarios. Furthermore, intelligence experts say that torture is “ineffective” because it “often produces false information.”
Of course it would give you false information. The reason is any person will tell you anything you want to hear just to get you to stop torturing them. DUH!!! The US SERE instructors teach this to their students that torture doesn’t work.
Scalia is living in a fantasy world were terrorists are always lurking around waiting to blow something up. It is just not reality. He needs to disconnect himself from his TV set and get a dose of real life.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am… following on my last comment, Nino’s excuse is that the torture is being done for “good purposes”, that is, we’ve only got the best intentions in mind, while if we’re doing the torture to punish someone actually convicted of a crime, that would be reprehensible. Shaddup and sit down, it’s for your own good….
Kiss the America we knew goodbye, folks, the new Republicans are in charge….
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 11:51 amTorture is punishment.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:52 amYep torture is still punishment. Impeach this crazy man.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am#18 burro:
Somebody needs to take away Fat Tony’s Oreos and Cheetos and pasta puttanesca and see what he thinks about torture then. He’d sing like a bird to get his hands on a Twinkie.
The RW foamers were all aghast that someone suggested feeding Thomas as much saturated fats and cholesterol as possible.
But I think that Ann Coulter’s recipe for SCOTUS cuisine needs pointing out: Rat poison.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 11:54 amScalia is technically correct: torture is NOT punishment.
It’s FUN and ENTERTAINMENT!
Just ask Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Feith, Addington, Rumsfeld…geez, how long IS the list?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:57 amSo, a Supreme Court Justice of the most powerful country in the world says torture depends on the intent of the person committing the assaults on the victim. If the person is causing pain to “gather information” or even for sadistic pleasure, it is not torture.
Only if the assaults are for the purpose of punishing do they rise to a violation of the 8th Amendment.
You know, this means if someone inflicts pain upon another for the purpose of converting him or her to a parrticular religion, it is Constitutional? Yup. That’s right. Scalia has embraced the purpose and tactics of the Spanish Inquisition.
But, hey, that’s ok, because impeachment is off the table, and Scalia is appointed for life.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:57 amScalia: “When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you.”
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Compare and contrast.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amThere’s a CANCER on the COURT!
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amSo, by Scalia’s reasoning, the cops are well within their rights to torture any one of US to get information - It’s only after we’re convicted of something that rights kick in. How perverse is that?
If they aren’t being punished for something, why are they incarcerated? Incarceration, itself, is punishment.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amWhere have you been these last 7 and a half years? It was Mission: Accomplished right after Bush v. Gore. All the rest since then has just been what they call ‘lagniappe’ down in looosyana…
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am1. It’s already a crime to commit torture.
2. Bush has already admitted to torturing.
3. Bush has also denied having commited torture because it is, in fact, against the law.
Our Supreme Court Justices should not,under any circumstances, be condoning torture because it is against the law. Having said that, Scalia should be removed from the court. Immediately.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amI went to college with one of his kids. Who had almost nothing to do with him.
He’s like Dubya, sociopathic, cruel.
I distinctly remember him, backstage before delivering a lecture to the law school, berating his wife for not putting his robe on correctly. Yelling at her, in full view of faculty, cruel for no reason. She cowered like a mouse.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amAnd that was 20 years ago and I get chills thinking about it.
zuch says;
…we’ve only got the best intentions in mind….
————————————————————–
there is an old proverb to keep in mind here;
the road to hell is PAVED with good intentions
April 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pmSCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
I have to agree with him. They are not punishing you, they are torturing you.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pmBTW guys, Bush can be condemned for many things - but HE did not appoint Scalia….
April 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pmScalia is no different than John Calvin. He would be first in line cheering on the witch burnings. He cares less of those with views different of his own. More so he believes they should be exterminated. Can you imagine anything more terrifying that a world of Scalias?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pmVAVOTER
http://usinfo.state.gov/ products/ pubs/ rightsof/ vote.htm
April 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pmScalia:
1. Torture is not punishment. Therefore,
2. Torture is not cruel or unusual.
Is this correct?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm“What’s he punishing you for?”
For withholding information.
But I guess since withholding information isn’t illegal, it can’t be punished? Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Scalia?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pmShameful and disgusting.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pmWow, it’s the 21st century version of “It all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
Totally playing Devil’s Advocate here, and Lord knows, I think Scalia is a pantload. I THINK the way he’s parsing words is thusly: If you’re TORTURING somebody, you’re not really PUNISHING that person because at that moment, you don’t know he’s done something wrong. PUNISHMENT is the result of being found guilty of a CRIME. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. In these stupid ticking time-bomb scenarios, the person being questioned hasn’t necessarily been found guilty of anything. Hell, he hasn’t even been formally accused of anything. We just suspect he either was involved in a terrorist act, or is involved in an impending terrorist act. No formal acknowledgment of this person having committed or planning to commit a crime. Therefore, torture isn’t punishmment! It’s JUST torture!
Wow, *I* sure feel better now! Don’t you? Let the eagle soaaaaarrrrrrr…
April 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm#9 jb:
How about trying to get a bit of logic and lawfulness out of this fat slob? I guess it would not be torture if he was beat with a sledgehammer because he wouldn’t be being punished, only being hurt to get the nonsense out of his being.
That couple that was accused of homicide when they wrapped that kid up in a blanket and suffocated him should demand a writ from Scalia. Despite the claims:
“Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.”
they weren’t trying to “punish” him; they were just parents trying to set him right….
It seems that perhaps others have been reading the Pearl manual:
“The Pearls’ advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others — even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.”
When you do this kind of thing, you should be careful so you don’t leave any marks. And don’t let anyone else see you; destroy the tapes.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm…he declared it would be “absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face.”
Absurd. That says it all, Scalia.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pmIt’s absurd you remain on the highest Court of the Land.
It’s absurd that you’re protecting torture.
It’s absurd you think any normal American would support this.
It’s absurd you have not yet been impeached.
Absurd? Yes.
Acceptable? HELL NO!
But… but… it’s ON FOX!!!!!! JACK BAUER does it!!!!!!!!
IT. MUST. BE ALL. RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is a sitting SCOTUS judge actually taking his leads from a BAD television series?
Saaaaayyyy… that statue over there has bare tits… in PUBLIC!!!!
WHOA!!! Can’t have that. Gotta keep democracy safe for the kiddies!
April 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pmScalia’s another “christian” who supports BRUTALITY against their fellow man.
Fkcu YOU, Nino.
Jesus will say “I never knew YOU…”
April 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pm#16 stryx:
So. Torture is not unconstitutional.
Bush v. Gore makes so much more sense now.
… or, if it’s still a bit fuzzy, it will after we get through with you…. ;-)
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pmWhat a total slimy bag-0-crap this piece of sh!t is…just with that statement he should absolutely be removed from the court and his law degree should be revoked.
Conservative criminal Bush butt kisser.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pmScalia is hair splitting over an important legal point , and is doing it in a deliberately tendentious and bullying way. Under the scenario Scalia so gleefully imagines, the victim is indeed being punished, for not providing information deemed acceptable by the torturer. The torturer is acting as judge, jury, and executioner under the “color of law”. In doing so, the torturer is both denying due process AND inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. But Scalia neatly decouples the due process question from the punishment question. In his construction, Scalia simply refuses to recognize the due process aspect of the situation. Once the victim has been deprived of due process, torture no longer functions as a legal punishment, which simply bypasses the prohibition against cruel punishment. It is a neat little rhetorical trick, like so many other intellectually dishonest tricks, used by Scalia to mold the law according to his own Christian fascist philosophy.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pmSCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for?
In the olden days, it didn’t matter if one was actually suspected of doing anything. Punishment, or interrogation, was used by cops to “send a message,” to other criminals. It didn’t matter if one was actually suspected of doing anything, or not.
Ever heard the term, “dragnet?”
April 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pmTROS @ 12:13
there you go again, getting snarky on us- and it’s ONLY Monday.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pmGuido: I think Scalia’s intellectual dishonesty runs more in this direction: (1) Torture is not punishment; therefore (2)It does not matter if torture is cruel and unusual because the Eighth Amendment prohibits only cruel and unusual punishment.
The Fifth Amendment due process issue goes away if you consider Scalia’s opinions in the detainee cases and his public pronouncements. According to Nino and his ilk the equation is : (1) Torture is not punishment; plus (2) Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process because the Fifth Amendment (take your pick) does not apply in time of war (as defined by the unitary executive) and/or does not apply to anyone picked up outside the U.S.; therefore (3) The U.S. may kidnap anyone anywhere and torure them for all eternity because neither the Fifth nor Eighth Amendments apply. Corollary to all of this: (4) Don’t bother us with your smelly international law arguments because we’re Americans and therefore need no such guidance.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm#32 tokin librul:
@23, zuch said: Kiss the America we knew goodbye, folks, the new Republicans are in charge….Cheers,
April 28th– 11:51 am
Where have you been these last 7 and a half years? It was Mission: Accomplished right after Bush v. Gore. All the rest since then has just been what they call ‘lagniappe’ down in looosyana…
I’ve been around, and I’ve been loud about the execrable Dubya v. Gore ever since it was handed down … not to mention the rest of the abused that Rethuglicans have engaged in before and after that. Don’t call me a “Johnny-Come-Lately”.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pmMaybe this animal actually believes that the Spanish inquistors who tortured centuries earlier were innocent ?After all Tony they were only trying gather information on heresy and withcraft , dangers to the publics well being .
April 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pmSo if they sink and drown Tony are they witches ? A SAD day for Amrica!
We have really sunk this far ?
So, according to Scalia’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, it’s OK to torture people as long as they’re not being “punished.” For example, it would be appropriate to torture people who aren’t being accused of having committed a crime, since there’s no way the act of torturing them could be construed as “punishment” for a specific crime. This I would call “tortured” logic.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pmVoice_of_Reason Says:
You are misreading Scalia’s remarks. All that he is pointing out is that this is not an 8th amendment issue, because the “torture” is not being used as “punishment”
VOR, wrong again. As many people have already commented here, punishment is being applied in response to a failure to provide information. The 8th amendment issue does not just go away like you and Scalia would like it to.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pmWiki sums it up neatly.
Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as a means of cruelty, intimidation, punishment, for the extraction of a confession or information. Torture is prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture, and is considered a severe violation of human rights.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pmApparently, Scalia needs to buy a dictionary.
pun·ish·ment –noun
April 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm4. severe handling or treatment.
ULTRA BULLSHIT OF THE DAY
Poll: Clinton has better chance than Obama of beating McCain
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm#58 Good quote on the meaning of torture, but an activist judge like Scalia can and will redefine the meaning of each and every word as needed to further his Christian fascist agenda.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pmAnd to follow on my last post, “dragnet,” is exactly the situation these prisoners faced. Arrested with little or no evidence, at a time when national hysteria was willing to overlook legal niceties like the Constitiution, they were tortured to exact retribution for 9/11, as much as to gain information, and to “send a message” to the inmates of the Gulag of Guantanamo, to that effect.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmJesus Christ this country is going down the toilet. It is scary to think that people whose basic humanity is in question are in control of this country.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20080428/ ap_on_el_pr/ presidential_race_ap_poll
April 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pmScalia needs to go. Has anyone opened up an investigation into him for any impeachable offenses? To be sure, there must be some.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm#50 Voice_of_Reason:
You are misreading Scalia’s remarks. All that he is pointing out is that this is not an 8th amendment issue, because the “torture” is not being used as “punishment” Instead, it is a 5th and 14th Amendment “due process” issue, as well as other constitutional provision — but not the 8th amendment.
Oh, what a crock. Have you read the Yoo memo (linked here)? There the torture fans go insist that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply either (because it’s not a “criminal prosecution”). As VerbalKint points out above, they consider each issue separately to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that the separate parts taken together dictate. It’s a Catch-22 that they’re doing, and they’re really good at making up this kind of cr*p….
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pmScalia is the first Justice on my impeachment list. Insanity is an impeachable offense. Besides it will send a message to the Bush appointed judges who haven’t made any decisions that I seen in favor of non-corporate interests. I find it hard to believe that Mukasey, Gonzales, or Scalia ever convinced any reasonable person that they were qualified to be a judge of our Constitution.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pmAntonin Scalia is a mentally ill sociopath, and should be removed from the Supreme Court immediately.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pmGood news is Scalia’s parents/grandparents didn’t have to live with his view of the Law. If they did he wouldn’t be in America. Now his interview on 60 Minutes was to sell his book that’s it. All the stuff he said was bull. He forget to say his son Eugene got a Bush appointed job, his daughter was drinking really drunk with small children in the car and when caught used Daddy’s name to get out of the ticket. All Scalia’s kids live off the fact of his Supreme Court position to get get a free pass on everything. Scalia sold his soul to the Devil long ago like Clarence Thomas did. Now Roberts and yes he’s gay Alito are joining in. Scalia knows this is it for him as he will have to answer to the Highest Power and with his evilness he knows Hell is the place for him. It is sad to see so many political Justices working for the GOP. I remember when blacks couldn’t vote now that group includes all Americans. America has seen in 7 years the down fall of this once Great Country. Even the students of England realize how the US Justice System has failed. We’ve come full circle with leaving King George of England to form a perfect nation to losing it all with Dictator George as Scalia just lives out his life with hate in his heart.
A rose by any name is still a rose, torture by any name is still torture. Let’s see what the fat boy says when he or his children are tortured?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pmScalia also forgets the LAW.
US code.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C >
§ 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Can we impeach this fat bastard, please?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pmDrawing to the logical conclusion, it is positively evil to make the claim that “punishment” in the Eight Amendment of the Bill of Rights only refers to punishment for a crime. Since we are innocent until proven guilty, we could not be possibly be punished for a crime until we were convicted of that crime. A common reading of the Eight Amendment is that it restricts the behavior of police men during an arrest and pre-trial confinement. But, no, since we haven’t been convicted of a crime, we could not yet be punished, and therefore the Eight Amendment restriction does not apply.
Scalia is trying to provide a legal foundation for a defense of the indefensible. Those who have ordered torture, witnessed torture, administered torture, and stood by while torture happened have committed war crimes. They should be punished to the full extent of the law for their crimes against humanity. If the United States will not hold them accountable then an international commission should be formed. I only hope that bystanders like Scalia will be held accountable in addition to those directly responsible like Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Bush.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pmGood news folks the inguisitors agree , having sunk this far as a nation we aren’t witches !….. sorry shannon .
April 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pmScalia is splitting hairs by attempting to argue semantics.
One man’s punishment is another man’s strict adherence to conventionality. This is why the slave owner thought it correct to chain his “PROPERTY”, so that it wouldn’t run away. This is why the slave master uses a rod, so that his “PROPERTY” knew who was masser.
Of course, these men “unpunished” in abu Ghraib and Gitmo were kindly treated before they were tried before a jury… NO?
Oh, I get it, they can’t be punished because they haven’t been charged and convicted of a damn thing…
.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pmImagine! This kind of thinking is a Supreme Court Justice! And not the only one! Jesus! This is no better than a high school debate tactic. Parsing at it’s best! The Democrats better get in the White House and get a 60 member majority in the Senate or this will perpetuate and get worse! Jesus Christ is he embarrassing. he even said his religion (Catholic-Opous Dei) doesn’t sway his decisions. BULL–SHIT!! Between he and Alito I doubt they ever make a decision without checking with their God. Even if it isn’t other peoples God. Thank God for atheism.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pmExactly what is the conviction rate for this Administration on convicting terrorists after torturing them?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pmIn Daily Kos today, the Bush Administrations in court documents, stated there is no such thing as “Solitary Confinement” because-
“Detainees can communicate through the walls!” They (the Bush Justice Dept) stated that ” Gitmo doesn’t have solitary confinement only single occupancy cells!”
jpopphan Says:
Scalia needs to go. Has anyone opened up an investigation into him for any impeachable offenses? To be sure, there must be some.
How about violating the Constitution by using the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to protect George W. Bush from the voters of Florida?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmThat greasy little barstid - I’d like to torture HIM.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pmnellieh Says:
Imagine! This kind of thinking is a Supreme Court Justice! And not the only one! Jesus! This is no better than a high school debate tactic. Parsing at it’s best!
No self-respecting high school teacher would allow such juvenile parsing in a debate. This is more on the playground level of debating.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pmRemember this, folks:
Scalia didn’t ‘forget’ about the Fifth Amendment. The ditzy talking head Leslie Stahl NEVER MENTIONED THAT ONE. Neither has anyone else, in any column, blog post, commentary, editorial, etc, that I’ve seen.
But Scalia knows it. He knows it only too well. And it’s time to string his scrawny old gluteus maximus up on a lamppost.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pmWayne, IMO Scalia and others are guilty of conspiracy to commit torture:
c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
This is not just impeachable.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pmAnd the ahole has the nerve to say Bush v. Gore is old news and why are we still talking about it. AND he blames Al Gore for the fact that they made the decision to install Bush into office. And he hates activist judges so what the hell was deciding who the president would be. Oh, he doesn’t want to discuss it any more.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pmTalk about an activist judge. This guy is Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter rolled into one right wing nutjob, with a robe.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:46 pmI’m guessing the Democrats in Congress will be ok with this. If they’re not, are they allowed to send a sternly-worded letter to a Supreme Court asswipe?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pmI watched this interview and got sick. Here’s a guy totally devoid of any acknowledgement that his decisions have real-world consequences. To him, it’s all an academic exercise. He says that none of his upbringing or social views cast any sort of sway with the decisions he makes. That is total bullshit! We all use our experiences to inform and shape our views and decisions. There was no light on behind his eyes. And the guy never went to his kids’ soccer games, etc. I wonder if they are the ‘over-achievers’ they are because they’re still trying to get daddy’s attention?
Let’s just say that the sooner this man is gone, the sooner our country will heal.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm#72..”Sorry Shannon”…If you ment Sharon here I am,,,To bad we haven’t become a nation of witch’s or at least witch sympathisers……Our guide line is “Do as you choose, but harm none”….Except in self defense I would never take a life..
More war’s have been faught in the name of relegion than for any other reason..No war’s have ever been started by witch’s or in the name of wiccan…Blessings
April 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pmAnd the whole punishment/torture thing was so twisted that I’m sure it’s going to start (justifiably) causing him some problems.
Yes, the Al Gore brought the lawsuit thing…well it IS called Bush vs. Gore…so didn’t Bush become the plaintiff in his appeal to the Supreme Court?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pmEvidently he would support another Inquisition if it would suit the needs of Bush & Co. on any and everyone.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pmIt’s also nice to know that Scalia is so sure…so right…about his opinions, and that others can’t possibly measure up to his knowledge.
I suppose growing up with no other children or even cousins by a family doting on you might give you an inflated sense of self-importance, but this guy came off scarier than before the interview. Does he really shun sunlight?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pmGod this man is despicable. How in the hell did he ever get to be on the Supreme Court. And he rails against the so-called liberal “activist judges”. Scalia is the dictionary definition of an activist judge. He makes judgments based on his religion and based on specious facts and interpretations of the constitution and laws.
If there is one very large reason to get a Democrat in the White House, Scalia is it. The Democrats need to run an ad listing all the absurd things Scalia has said and done and then end it with, can we really afford any more Supreme Court Judges like Scalia. If not, vote Democratic.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pmAnd another thing! He seems really selfish. Nine kids?! He certainly wasn’t thinking of his wife’s health, just his ‘needs.’ Yeah, I’m sure the Italian-American community is just THRILLED with how he’s heaped such good vibes on them.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pmAnd, as usual, the MSM is not reporting on this. Try to do a search of the news and see how many hits you get. Disgusting. What the Rev. Wright has to say in a sermon is more important than what a Supreme Court Justice has to say about torture.
My god, what have we become as a nation?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pmScalia spewing his nonsensical crap is no surprise ; this fat jackass has shown what he’s about with all the times he’s refused to recuse himself from decisions ……..
April 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pmThe Republicans consistently rail against the necessity of government regulation and the interference of government into the minutiae of daily activities of business. However, Scalia’s view of the law shows exactly why such actions are necessary.
Most crimes under the common law were not statutory in nature. The actions circumscribed were considered wrong and evil in and of themselves. They were crimes such as arson, murde and rape, crimes malum in se. Other crimes were malum prohibitum, ie. actions that were not inherently or obviously illegal but rather reflected a policy from the government - driving on the right or left side of the street. Of course, we have since extensive criminal codes develop since the 20th century. However, remember the moral component to how most crimes developed under the law. It was based upon the belief that civilized people could recognize right from wrong and good from evil.
The Republicans are like many businessmen. They believe that one must ignore the spirit of the law inorder to maximize their political advantage (profit in business.) Thus, the Republicans will question every single assumption, belief or spirit underlying the law. Morality is divorced from the law. Anything not specifically proscribed is permissible (at least as long as it is a Republican.) Thus we see the theory of the unitary executive, never known or expressed in constitutional law before the Regan presidency. We see the Geneva Conventions seen as quaint. We see torture redefined so that nothing constitutes torture unless we have it fully defined as to who is doing it, how long and with the exact methodology. We see attorneys within the government used to authorize actions that would have shocked the conscience a few years ago and to provide a new Nuremburg defense to those carrying out war crimes.
A society cannot long survive when actions and responsibility are divorced from morality. There can be no justice when every word, every statute and every legal precedence in parsed to the degree that one can no longer easily define any action as right or wrong. This was not the system that I studied in law school. It was not the system that I administered as a prosecutor. It was not the system that I saw litigating for the Air Force or as senior counsel to a corporation.
The total crap that I hear pour forth scum like Scalia, Gonzales, Yoo and the other filth that call themselves attorneys and supporting Bush would have been summarily dismissed in the past. Unitary executive - BS, that is what the separation of powers is all about. A commander in chief allowed to violate laws established by Congress - to hell with that, Youngstown Steel kind of covers it. I could go on, but why? The country that I once took pride in no longer exists. We have become like the old Soviet Union in which a small group of elites run the country with propaganda, control of the press and a justice system based upon men and not the law. It does not really matter that senior party members are replaced with corporate interests. The end result is the same.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pmKlem Kiddilehopper Says:
Exactly what is the conviction rate for this Administration on convicting terrorists after torturing them?
Remember the idiots in Florida where the government infiltrated their group and promised them money to do some damage in the name of Osama? Well, they were all acquitted on a second trial. Now the government is going to try them for a third time! Talk about desperate, this administration is desperate for something they can declare as a victory other than convicting Padilla of a lesser crime when he could not even assist in his own defense. They had tortured him to the extent where he now identifies with his captors and thought that he should be punished for whatever they wanted to punish him for.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm.
What Scalia meant was:
“It’s not torture when the USA does it.”
.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pmJesus and God will remember the support of TORTURE by this “christian”…
April 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pmThe Jack Bauer fiction is so powerful that it influences the thinking of a Supreme court justice…
Perhaps someone should talk about the “24″ “directors cut,”
April 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pmyou know, the one with all the deleted scenes, where Jack tortures hundreds of innocent suspects who have done little wrong except being a suspect in the mind of the guy who suspects everyone…
Of course, in the directors cut Jack has to face the fact that no suspect can ever be given due process, because none of them can be innocent, because once Jack suspects they’re guilty he tortures them, and since he only tortures the ones that really really really need to be tortured …
Coming soon to DVD –season 8, Jack Bauer: Summary Executions, “because I say so…”
Scalia deliberately misreads the Constitution here–just like radical righties always do–and that’s without going to the Fifth Amendment. He chooses to narrow punishment down to ’sentence for a crime’. But that’s not the language. There is nothing in the amendment that says punishment is to be considered only in the context of a legal sentence. The Founding Fathers, it should be remembered, lived in aworld of arbitrary imprisonment, detention without trial, and torture. He’s taking a narrow interpretation both without justification and disingenuously.
Riddle me this, Fat Tony: Is it therefore your interpretation of the intent of the authors of the constitution to protect the guilty from this practice–but not the innocent?
Because that’s what you’re saying.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pmA judge with a political axe. This man is an abomination to the law and more so to justice.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pmWill everyone please forward this news story on to CNN, MSNBC and any other “news” channel so they will get OFF OF REV WRIGHT as a news story?!?!!?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pmIf the Bar Association in this Country took itself seriously, scum like Scalia, Gonzales, Mukasey, Yoo, Addington and many of these other activist judges and legal counsels would be permanently dis-barred for their many subversive actions that go against our Constitution and the spirit of the many varied laws they subvert.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pmA few quotes from a true patriot who loves his Country:
“America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America.”
“Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.”
“Republicans are men of narrow vision, who are afraid of the future.”
“The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation.”
Jimmy Carter
April 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pmScalia and the rest of them are a malignant cancer growing in America’s soul…
God help us.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pmWell as long as we don’t think it’s torture or cruel punishment, then it isn’t torture or cruel punishment.
Problem solved!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pmRuth Bader-Ginsburg did herself no favors either by being on 60 Minutes. She comes across as intellectually void as well that her decisions mean something in the real world. Scalia said something to the effect if you think about the consequences you would go crazy, you wouldn’t be able to do it. Wrong, Tony…if you have a CONSCIENCE you wouldn’t be able to make the decisions you do. That would go right along with your sudden disenfranchisement of a whole class of people in Indiana.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pmI suggest Scalia stop colouring his hair… it looks ridiculous an old fart like himself trying to look young. Besides, with his gray hair, he will look much much bettr on HAGUE!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pmThe Neocons wet dream ticket –
Cheney/Scalia in 2008!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pmI sorry but Scarlia is a sick individual. This man is the final say on what the laws are of this country and he’s saying if a cop is beating you, he’s not punishing you. That’s bullshit and he knows it. How would that fat bastard like for some 275 lb cop to pound his fat head in. This sick little man has no business on any court not to mention the US Supreme Court.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pmWho put him there? Why don’t the Democrats stand up to these neanderthals? Who put Mukasey in? Who let Alito on the court? I’m a Democrat and I’m so ashamed of my party I want to scream. The truth of the matter is that none of this can hold much longer. Obama is right that people are bitter and heck, I don’t even live in a small town (New York is totally awesome!) and I don’t own a gun and I make a pretty good living.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pmFood for thought for anyone who thinks McPain is a moderate…
From the John McCain website — http://www.johnmccain.com/ Informing/ News/ PressReleases/ 81626a47-6bbe-4a04-9cf2-62cf292d8f11.htm —
“I have long admired John McCain for his courage, character, and integrity,” said Mr. Olson. “He is the candidate best prepared to lead as commander in chief from day one. John McCain has a deep-rooted conservative philosophy and I trust him to appoint strict constructionists, like Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, to judicial positions.”
John McCain thanked Mr. Olson for his support, stating, “Ted Olson is among our nation’s most distinguished experts on the rule of law. I am honored to have his support, and I look forward to his counsel and leadership on judicial issues.”
As reported by the Christian Science Monitor in their February 11, 2008 edition –http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0211/p09s01-coop.html
McCain has also made the standard promise to name Supreme Court justices who share the perspectives of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as those of Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
Even McPain’s wild-eyed fanatic supporters had better hope that the government never decides to adopt a measure that they don’t like (such as taking away their guns), because the constitutional protections they had previously enjoyed, such as freedom of speech, will have become null and void.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pmWhat are they punishing them for, he asks.
They’re punishing the detainees because they won’t tell the captures what they want to know. If they “talked,” then they wouldn’t be “punished.”
I’m not a lawyer, and even I know this.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pmIf torture does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” — then would someone kindly ask Scalia just what the hell he thinks does?!? To say that torture would not fall under the Eighth Amendment ban against “cruel and unusual punishment” basically suggests that Scalia literally doesn’t believe that there’s any such thing as “cruel and unusual punishment” — anyone who’s studied history and/or human nature knows very well that human beings can find an excuse for almost anything if and when they put their minds to it, which is exactly what Scalia has done here. The ancient fable attributed to Aesop about the wolf and the lamb applies well here…ANY EXCUSE WILL SERVE A TYRANT. I also find myself reminded of that famous quote from the Roman poet Juvenal — Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will protect us from those charged with our protection?) Anyone who doesn’t consider these remarks by Scalia deeply disturbing — if not outright terrifying — is not simply ignorant, but wantonly stupid.
Scalia and many others like him within the Bush administration and among its supporters are just like the pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” who in order to justify their own corruption eventually succeeded in perverting every single one of the principles upon which Animal Farm had been established — and in the end, they became every bit as cruel and exploitative (or even more so) as the human beings whom they had thrown out and from whom they had ostensibly been protecting the other animals.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:37 amWow - So many possible things to add to this, but I’ll start here:
fletc3her Says:
Agreed. Even if the Dems get in power, filibuster-proof margins in both Houses of Congress AND the WH, they won’t prosecute these charges. It will HAVE to come from the outside.
An important point about international tribunals: At the Nuremburg trials, one of the courts dealt SOLELY with the German judges and lawyers. Just so, it may come to pass that Scalia, Yoo, other individuals at the DOJ, would all be “made to answer” for their enabling of the crimes of the Bush administration.
I am not holding my breath on this - just pointing out that there is precedence.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pmnellieh Says:
Just think: If Rehnquist had not gotten so ill and died WHEN HE DID, John Roberts (bad as HE is) would only have been up for Associate Justice. And WHO was the front runner for Chief Justice until that transpired? Antonin Scalia…
April 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Absolutely correct. It is CRIMINAL. One has to wonder, though, if he would be convicted of a CRIME, would they still not impeach him according to the Constitution? They are SUPPOSED TO, but until they did, I am not so sure.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pm“A just person will ignore his pride when he hears what is right, an unjust person will ignore what is right and hold fast to his pride.” –John Africa
“Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.” –John Adams
“Power always thinks . . . that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all His laws.” –John Adams
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm