Wow... so Scalia believes that torture is not a crime because you aren't technically being "punished."
Apparently that means cruel and unusual treatment is okay, but if it's "punishment", then it's not.
Clearly the framers of the constitution phrased this with the word "punishment" because it is only those circumstances that cruel and unusual treatment is likely to occur. It does not mean that cruel and unusual treatment elsewhere is okay.
Bah, whoever posted this is too stupid to distinguish punishment from violence, and can't tell his dick from his elbow if he thinks that what Scalia is saying means that he thinks torture is unconstitutional.
@edenstore Under "enhanced interrigation" (which Scalia endorses), Scalia himself would offer entirely different responses to these questions. I wonder why?
Sadists are notoritous for hurting others, but not wanting to be hurt themselves. Remember Osama bin Laden's heroic last moments? He was hiding behind women to save his own skin. Scalia would do the same.
what a DOUCHE BAG! this is a good reason why i cannot say the united states is not the greatest country in the world....its run by people like this scum bag. smh
@live4pce You do realize that your double-negative statement created a positive one that is the same as you saying "The United States IS the greatest country in the world", don't you? I also suggest that you realize how admirable of an individual Mr. Scalia truly is. Back to your community college, sir/mam.
@DBMunplugged Simple typing error on my part, but you realize the point I was trying to make. Torture is illegal for a reason and its people like this who try and justify it that give this country a bad name. I didn't go to a community college. I'm guessing that is supposed to be an insult because I have a different opinion than you? Good day.
@live4pce He didn't justify torture. He said that it is not unconstitutional, which is correct. It is not his job to decide what is justified and by the way what does "justified" even mean? If you think that the job of a supreme court justice is to decide what is morally justified or not then you do not understand the separation of powers. If you want to make torture unconstitutional, fine, pass an amendment that says so explicitly.
@dragan221 Cruel and unusual punishment is expressly forbidden in the constitution. I think it's pretty obvious that torture is punishment for not following a certain pattern of behavior
@FootDanielLight The Constitution as originally understood could have been specifying punishment as penalty for a crime. Torture, while being an ambiguous term is a technique used in Interrogation. Interrogation is not a penalty for a crime, but part of a investigatory process in identifying who will be prosecuted and then punished for the crime.
@zerogullibility Wouldn't it be easier just to enact a law that prohibits torture? Given that laws already exist prohibting torture, and that Scalia said he opposes torture personally, why does he need to go to hell about it?
@edenstore Under "enhanced interrigation" (which Scalia endorses), Scalia himself would offer entirely different responses to these questions. I wonder why?
Sadists are notoritous for hurting others, but not wanting to be hurt themselves. Remember Osama bin Laden's heroic last moments? He was hiding behind women to save his own skin. Scalia would do the same.
Punishment: where an agent of the government by virtue of authority deriving from (and directly related to) a criminal conviction as a result of the conviction the agent of the government intentionally inflicts pain or otherwise causes defendant to suffer some consequence ordinarily considered unpleasant. This is technically different from torture, but I get frustrated at Scalia's lack of grace in explaining the difference. Maybe he felt he needn't explain, but condescension is disrespectful.
If you continue to argue this, save by means of some extremely novel approach that I certainly cannot imagine, you will be in danger of committing precisely what you earlier accused Scalia of : arguing in bad faith.
@strawberEfieldz4ever i really agree...sadly. I'm extremely liberal, hate this guy with a passion, but his definition of the word punishment really is correct.
The term punishment in a legal context refers to the sentence you received after being found guilty of a crime. The sentence is the "punishment" for breaking the law. Scalia's point is torture is not a sentence and, therefore, is not punishment. It is categorically distinct and beyond the scope of any legal definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Scalia is a lightweight and profoundly under-qualified to be in the Supreme Court. The more I here him talk, the more I realize that we are living in an age of mediocrity. We elected and re-elected a president that could barely put two words together in a conversation. We have three Supreme Court Justices that are not up to the task, intellectually (Scalia, Roberts and "out-to-lunch" Thomas).
Journalists at Fox News have voluntarily subjected themselves to water-boarding. That is my personal definition of Torture. Torture is anything that an anchor at a news-station would be unwilling to voluntarily subject themselves too.
@Califacience A U.S. citizen, WHITE no less, will "voluntarily subject himself" to waterboarding because he knows that his fellow white Americans are the ones performing the act. They will be careful not to injure him for fear of suit and out of common affinity for him as a wealthy, white American. He assumes no risk whatsoever in "subjecting" himself to an act performed by his friends and countrymen, especially when he is not suspected of having committed a crime.
Obviously in any situation like this a release would have to be signed.
But you have changed the subject from the essential nature of the method to issues of excess and such.
Would for example, any Fox news anchor ever agree to have their finger nails removed (another well known method of torture) if it was done "responsibly"? The very fact that we are talking about HOW it is done is quite revealing.. Real torture does not have risk, it is the object of risk.
@Califacience No. I have not changed the subject at all. I am suggesting that the mental stress and terror inflicted upon the detainee must be taken into account, when gauging whether or not the conduct constitutes torture. And the innocent, AMERICAN news reporters who willfully subject themselves to the methods are not afraid because they know 1) They can stop the procedure whenever they wish. 2) That the captor has not intent to kill or severely injure them. 3) And indeed, that the captor..
@Califacience Well that's a pretty absurd view. Even the Justice Department under BUSH acknowledged that infliction of mental anguish is a component of torture.
@Califacience ....and 3) that the U.S. is TRYING TO PROVE THE SAFETY OF THEIR METHODS.
So your whole argument about signing a "release" is moot. The government has an interest in making sure reporters and other persons who wilfully subject themselves to torturous methods are kept safe. If they die, the general public will turn against the administration and decry the interrogation methods as draconian.
There is a bit of Sophistry here, you are distracting from the core issue of the nature of the procedure and incorporating wider issues of environment that will remain regardless of whether the procedure is used. I speak specifically of the ignorance of the captive of the intent his captors. I am certain the Bush administration does not take the position that the captive must be assured that his life is safe IN GENERAL.
it does not see the absence of this knowledge as torture.
@Onieracraft Your point is a stupid one, which is probably why it took me this long to respond.
The Department of Justice crafts arguments for legal issues that are likely to arise. The questionable legality of the waterboarding procedure was such an issue. The "general safety" of the detainment camps were not a pressing concern because providing an unsafe detainment facility is a not a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Torture and degrading treatment IS.
@Onieracraft Secondly, you other point: that certain environmental factors (such as the inherent fear of being captured by an enemy force during an armed conflict) are a constant and therefore irrelevant, is likewise stupid. Simply because a certain circumstance or condition is universally applicable to all armed conflicts, does not mean that that factor is irrelevant. The fear one feels when captured by the enemy is real and palpable. I will not let you so casually and unartfully dismiss it
So looking beyond the essential nature of the act and factoring in these psychological considerations, whether or not something is torture now becomes a matter of the personal preference and of the old Sorites paradox. is holding him in custody without assuring him that he is completely safe torture? Certainly if you add to that loud screaming, or banging things, which easily gives the impression that Physical violence is to follow, it would have to qualify.
@edenstore Nope. Not true. I raise race as an issue when it is logically applicable to the situation. In the context of torturing islamic terrorist suspects, race is certainly an issue that must be discussed. Rather than regurgitating stale talking points and cliches, such as "race card," you should have explained why race does not apply to this situation. Get a mind of your own.
punishing you for not telling you the information. Here Scalia. I solved the big puzzle for you. Stop with the non-sense that torture is constitutoinal.
Lmfao "thats my view and im correct" sadly i believe in tortue if they have valuable info. I also think our prision system is too good. Other countries prision system are truly cruel and unusual
They are barking up the wrong tree, the constitution grants us a right against self incrimination and applying physical inducement to talk undermines that right. I disagree with Judge Scalia, but I can see his line of reasoning.
@XXXXXX856, torture in the beginning of the constitution, was constitutional. therefore, im guessing that they did give the definition of punishment. furthermore, punishment is a penalty. in this casae, penalties are consequences of crimes(e.g. burglary, murder) etc. from the other perspective, you can say that when someone is cross-examined they are "punished", just because they are being "mistreated".
@Iobi123 No. Punishment is something done in retaliation for not getting the desired outcome, not just mistreatment. If someone is tortured for not talking, that is punishment. Regardless:
This is Scalia's reasoning: Military tortures a 10 year old girl for having blonde hair - "Well, having blonde hair isn't a crime, and she wasn't found guilty. So the torture was constitutional."
I'm sure this is exactly what the framers intended!
@BenkaiDebussy I made the point in response to your other post, but the same one applies to this one. What you are describing would almost certainly be a denial of due process and entirely unconstitutional. But that conclusion does NOT rely on an 8th Amendment argument (i.e. its not cruel and unusual punishment). That is the ONLY point being made here. No one said torture is legal. No one said torture is justified. All that has been said is that the 8th Amendment alone doesn't prohibit it
@Ringo84 Its a semantic point he is making. Punishment in the legal sense is the imposition of hardship in response to some form of misconduct (i.e. you steal something and your punishment in response to your misconduct is a fine). Someone who is being tortured is not being given a hardship in response to misconduct. Torture has nothing to do with responding to some prior misconduct. In a colloquial sense, sure, you can call it punishment. But in a legal sense, thats just not the right word
So in that case would it not be classified as assault? If punishment can only be a response to misconduct that has been deemed illegal by a civilian or military court. Then that means that any physical or psychological abuse is unjustified. What are the rights of ANYONE who is detained? Surely they are not to be beaten if you can't even classify them as someone who ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME. There is no such thing as limbo. It is just a slick way of not directly confronting the truth.
Are you suggesting that a person detained is subject to torture because they have not been found guilty of a crime. Because as you stated punishment can only be administered after someone is found guilty. So, you Americans can pull anyone off the streets and subject them to ANY means you feel necessary to attain information on a crime? Because they are not formerly charged with anything the means by which you receive (or not receive) that information is in some sort of legal limbo?
I can tell by your writing that you are quite intelligent. So I know you must be smarter than that. Scalia is being coy and dishonest. Regardless of political affiliation.
@drbayoms You may be misunderstanding the argument. No one is saying torture is justified. This video is making a very narrow point. She suggested that the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" encompasses torture. But torture and punishment aren't legally the same. Thus, the sole conclusion here is that the 8th Amend. doesn't prohibit torture. That does NOT mean that torture is condoned. Nor does it imply that torture isn't prohibited based on some OTHER constitutional section
@Ringo84 That isn't what he is suggesting. All he is saying is that the 8th Amendment doesn't appear to ban torture (since it only bans "punishment"). He is NOT saying that torture is allowed. And he doesn't preclude the conclusion that torture may be illegal based on some other section of the Constitution. He is merely saying that, if it is illegal, it wouldn't be because of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Very different than saying "torture is justified"
at least there's one good thing that comes from this: we can immediately determine if our president is worthy by whether or not he immediately orders the assassination of every single supreme court judge
Yeah. This is why every reasonable person in the world hates you, Scalia. You are scum. You sit there like the government's pimple and blindly defend the one ideology that happens to be eating this country alive. Fuck you, no one deserves to be ruled by your idiotic cerebral discharge, you shitty little bastard bigot.
getting beat up by a police officer does not implicate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. as Newscholar pointed out, that clause deals with sentencing. that doesn't mean it's okay for a police officer to beat someone up. Police brutality, while certainly illegal, has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment.
Scalia is absolutely right on the "punishment point". People so easily mix up words. Torture and punishment are very different. I don't particularly like the man's attitude, but he is completely correct on this point.
First point - "Punishment" means the punishment or sentence that a judge would hand down on you in a court of law, not the military "torturing" terrorists.
Second point - Assume that "Cruel and unusual punishment" did apply to military questioning, and a suspect WAS waterboarded, what then??? Our system of laws would handle this situation by defining what torture is and what the appropriate (ironic) punishment would be for tortuing a human being.
He sat there and let 911 happen, bigtime inside job and did nothing, they wouldn't even make obama show his records. This man is a hood. He is a puppet to the rockefeller rothschild cabal.
Scalia is a bastard. He is like a spoiled little bully. I had no idea our courts were this insane. Listen to this man! Define punishment. If he's not guilty scalia says its not punishment so it's okay. I guess if he's guilty and he's getting abused it's punishment therefore it's illegal. This man is off the hook. We need to impeach this sob.
Whether you like him or not...whether you are liberal or conservative...democrat or republican..it doesnt matter to him.....he follows the Constitution. This man does not rule according to his opinion....but according to the Consitution. He is....ALWAYS...right.....and he has 6 other Supreme Court Justices behind him, to make sure he is....ALWAYS....right.
Scalia clearly suffers from dementia when claiming that women and gays are not protected by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment protects "ANY PERSON" ! Which part of ANY doesn't he understand. He is the best example why there should be an age ort term limit for Supreme Court Justices.
Scalia might be evil-hearted, a prankster, or senile. His saying that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect genders or sexualities from discrimination, that torture is not unconstitutional, reminds me of Chief Justice Taney once attesting that a black man in America has no rights a white man is bound to respect. But Scalia might not be a cretin. He could just be having fun, playing devil's advocate. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, his statements are still very inappropriate.
@parafleet wow, good job summing it up. i had a similar sense but couldn't quite put it into words.... fundamentally he is being dishonest, and he knows it, and he thinks no one is smart enough or powerful enough to catch him. lesley stahl is balless here in her capitulation to his word games. punishment is punishment, come on!!!!!!!!!!
@parafleet Hes right though. The U.S. constitution supports the opposite of what most liberals think it does. It actually is AGAINST protecting genders and sexualities and races from discrimination insofar as those people are not physically harmed by such discrimination. discrimination may be wrong. But its not the governments place to legislate morality. Its to ensure peace. To stop violence and theft. But people can call each other nigger all they want. Freedom of opinion is very important.
@parafleet You are an idiot OR you know nothing about law. You can't just read into the constitution everything that you think is required to protect all the minorities in country and you cant just read into the constitution whatever moral values you happen to have.
Scalia has this crazy notion that under the rule of law, we ought to be governed by the law, rather than our personal convictions about what we think is right or wrong (unless we change the law to conform to those convictions about what is right and wrong).
@Califacience It would really be a blessing, after all, if you had the privilege, to say nothing of practical courage, to live by the letter of your idealistic absolutes.
@parafleet I think the thing that was lost on everyone here, including the reporter, is that Scalia is very precise in his understanding of language (in this case, with regard to the meaning of the word "punishment"). This is lost on most people, who are mentally too lazy to bother themselves with the fine distinctions between related words. Once words are used sloppily, these distinctions are blurred, and there can be no clear understanding of anything.
@jguar17944 I take "practical heart" in the U.S. Constitution. That's what all of this means to me. Laws to protect U.S. citizens, to protect those whom U.S. citizens deal with, have only the scope, the range proclaimed by the appointed officials who interpret them. Of course, over time this has built up an apparent fortification of positive precedent. But watch how a few rogue judges, in a society stressed by "emergency," will subvert the good that has gone before. Still, Scalia's playing.
@MIvarsson99 In a primetime interview he can be anything he wants to be. He's off the clock there and this is America. As for me, I don't think the U.S. Constitution protects torture, etc., and that's beside the point. Take care.
@parafleet On the clock or not, he would not permitted to disclose the contents of classified government information, which he may be privy to on account of his status as a high court judge. So I guess some rules DO APPLY even "off the clock."
ALSO: clearly, he's expressing the same view here that he would espouse in an official ruling on the subject. If you'd ever read a Scalia opinion, you would know that this interview is consistent with the way he rules on cases.
@Onieracraft My counter-argument to Scalia is the same exact argument that Leslie Stahl makes here. The police officer is a state actor working for the government. He is torturing the accused in part, based on his belief that the accused is guilty of the crime. Case closed. A government actor is abusing a person based on his belief that the person is guilty of the wrongdoing for which they have been accused. Therefore it is PUNISHMENT, cruel and unusual punishment.
@MIvarsson99 Uhh no, the case is not closed. "Punishment" is a legal term as it is used in the 8th amendment. It can only be exacted as a consequence of criminal conviction, period. Read about it's history, it is actually a limit on the discretion of judges.
@Onieracraft A proper time to take note: Instead of telling someone simply to "read about its history," it would be better to point to specific historical texts to prove your point. Then you would have to prove to me that the framers intended that the word "punishment" ONLY be used in references to judges administering sentences.
Do you imagine that law began with the American Constitution? This is a classical legal definition of the word "punishment" that predates the framers. Presumably it was the intent of the framers for others to understand them, which would not be the case if they took classical legal terms, privately redefined them and then never conveyed the meaning of those private definitions to anyone. At the very least they would have to explain their departure for the common usage.
The origin of the eighth amendment itself (not of the legal term "punishment" which is much older) can be found in the 1689 English Bill or Rights, which the amendment simply paraphrases.
"And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments have been inflicted."
@Onieracraft A proper time to take note: Instead of telling someone simply to "read about its history," it would be better to point to specific historical texts to prove your point. Then you would have to prove to me that the framers intended that the word "punishment" ONLY be used in references to judges administering sentences.
@MIvarsson99 Excuse me, I should have quoted the sentence before my last quote for further clarification of the fact that we are discussing criminal trial " And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders."
@Onieracraft Without realizing it, the argument you have made is this: Torture inflicted upon a detained person, by law enforcement officers, is not cruel and unusual punishment because SCOTUS says that it is not.
I DISAGREE with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th amendment. So, you cannot claim that I am wrong simply because the Court disagrees with me. Without realizing it, that is what you are doing. That is why you stated, as though it were fact: "It can ONLY be exacted as..."
@Onieracraft Without realizing it, the argument you have made is this: Torture inflicted upon a detained person, by law enforcement officers, is not cruel and unusual punishment because SCOTUS says that it is not.
I DISAGREE with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th amendment. So, you cannot claim that I am wrong simply because the Court disagrees with me. Without realizing it, that is what you are doing. That is why you stated, as though it were fact: "It can ONLY be exacted as..."
@Onieracraft You wrote of punishment "It can only be exacted as a consequence of criminal conviction"----Here you are simply PARROTING back the current state of the law. Yes, I know. The federal courts of this country have declared torture and abuse inflicted by law enforcement not to be "punishment" under the 8th amendment.
Parroting back their rule does not prove ANYTHING. You have not shown that the courts are correct in their interpretation of the eigth amendment.
@Onieracraft You wrote of punishment "It can only be exacted as a consequence of criminal conviction"----Here you are simply PARROTING back the current state of the law. Yes, I know. The federal courts of this country have declared torture and abuse inflicted by law enforcement not to be "punishment" under the 8th amendment.
Parroting back their rule does not prove ANYTHING. You have not shown that the courts are correct in their interpretation of the eigth amendment.
@parafleet How the hell can you say that he is playing devil's advocate, when he is casting votes on the significant legal issues of our day, which shape our society? Terms like "playing devil's advocate" are reserved for people who, on occasion, publicly advocate positions which they do not believe. Scalia is doing more than mere advocacy. He is VOTING and writing opinions that have profound consequences. Sorry to go off like that but you should really look up terms before using them.
@MyMatthewt EXACTLY. He is punishing you for not answering him. He is punishing you for his BELIEF that you have committed a crime. He is punishing you for giving him information which he deems false etc.
Somehow, because he is wearing a badge instead of a robe, he is not capable of violating the 8th amendment?!?! This is pure lunacy.
Scalia is a disagreeable, cantankerous, old fart. His ego is as gargantuan as his opinions are labrynthine. Yet, it is only him and a handful of other men, who have saved the Republic from socialism and preserved your rights to criticize public officials.
I believe that the most overlooked amendment in the Bill Of Rights applies here. Amendment 9 reads: "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Though the constitution doesn't specifically mention torture the 9th amendment certainly should give pause to its use. At least on the American People. Though the courts did throw out a case recently when torture was used saying it violated the 5th amendment.
Are you making the point that we don't own our own bodies? And equality is a tenant of our republic. So much so that the framers put the equal protection clause in the constitution. And I never said that U.S. law applies to other countries actions, but ours and our agents no matter where they are. The military courts must adhere to the same laws of civilian courts. And the military courts are subject to the Supreme Court just as any other court.
He is correct, technically, because the police are not part of the "punishment" part of the system, the judiciary is. The police don't hand down sentences. Torturing would be under the "treatment" the police give you.
Plus, this doen't apply to foreign nationals in a foreign nation jailed by that nation, or foreign nationals in another nation captured as enemy combatants on the battlefield or attacking our soldiers.
@NoGuff However, under the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated." And torture does violate personal security.
@NoGuff However,under the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated". And torture violates personal security.
The first act of congress was to adopt the Declaration of Independence. In it Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal". American law applies to any action taken by any agent of the u.s. So, our system of law applies to anyone we interact with. There are no exceptions for soldiers or "enemy combatants."
--Good point. But doesn't that regard "search and seizure?' As in owneship.
"torture violates personal security"
--That's a point that could be made.
"all men are created equal"
--Tha'ts a philosophy, not a law. U.S. law doesn't apply to people in other countries. If it did, then we'd have to bestow automatic U.S. citizenship to them all today.
"There are no exceptions"
--Then why do soldiers go through military courts with their own laws?
try taking a class on constitutional law, or short of that, try reading the constitution. scalia is absolutely right in saying that the constitution does not prohibit torture of detainees. the 8th amendment does prohibit torture as punitive measures against criminals. the constitution does not attempt to act as a ban for all abhorrent activity. this is where state and federal statutes come into play. JUSTICES ARE NOT LAWMAKERS. don't blame them for showing judicial restraint.
@nicky2coats I agree. Both sides during the civil war used torture extensively. Can you imagine if Lincoln or Davis were put on trial by their own people as war criminals. Can you imagine what would happen if international councils against torture were around then. Uh Mr. Sherman you can't burn down people's houses and torment the GA towns or CSA you can't starve USA POWs to make them talk. Can you imagine if that were so!
@nicky2 coats Im not surprized by his comments right now because if you hear him ask lawyers in cases, he makes important and precise questions and comments
There is interrogation. There is torture. I'm confused at what's being said... So the lady says that punishment and torture can be the same. Scalia says torture is torture and is not the same as punishment. I don't understand why that would mean he supports torture. Scalia doesn't really voice his own opinion all the time, but rather just says the truth in a logical manner.
First, Scalia is 100% correct. Second, if ever I want to read the beliefs and screeds of incredibly moronic group of people, I will return to this video and look at all the comments saying Scalia supports torture.
Scalia is an "original intent" guy. Fine, but to be consistent, he would have to agree that Dred Scott was correctly decided, and he would also disagree with Brown v. Board.
So my friend knew where this bomb was planted in the city, and the cops hauled him in before it was about to go off and they kept punishing him until he told them where the bomb was, he kept getting punished until his punishment was up and they let him go because the punishment didn't work.
Torture has been used as punishment since time immemorial. Moreover, policemen and soldiers can get carried away when they have a suspect in custody who they believe is guilty in some respect, or simply uncooperative. They have not only the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment but ALSO the right to due process - which would be violated if the punishment of torture is applied before a verdict in court. Then throw in the equal protection clause, and torture is out.
I am as liberal as it gets, but Scalia is completely right on this one. It's a play on words. punishment is after having been found guilty, NOT before. If the constitution had said "Cruel and unusual treatment" then Scalia would be wrong, but it says PUNISHMENT and therefore he is quite right, due to a play on words. Did he say he supports torture? NO! He said that torture is not the same as punishment, and if people bothered to actually look at the difference in words...
@Newscholar Firstly, so what if he said he doesn't support torture? There is no such thing as deception? He's a republican freak. Secondly, it is punishment. Someone asks you for information. You refuse to give information. He punishes you for refusing to give information.
@MrWsad I do not disagree with your first premise. I despise Scalia and nearly everything he has ever said. But that does not take away from the fact that many words in the English language can be interpreted in different ways. To me, punishment is reserved after a pronouncement of guilt, and that if that case is not met it is... victimization, castigation, mortification, torture. But to me, punishment implies penalty, which implies a sentence of some form.
@Smiffy008 And what is it exactly that you think allows lawyers and politicians to interperet the law as they wish? Semantics. It's the name of the game. If you don't pay attention to the little details, those who do will always spin circles around you. I know several lawmakers and have worked to pass a few pieces of legislation, and semantics are the name of the game. Try looking at a simple statutory law and you'll see exactly what I mean.
@MrWsad And what you said has what exactly to do with the constitution? Did I say that I agreed with torture? No, I don't believe that I did. I was agreeing with Scalia's interpretation of the wording within the constitution, not the reality of torture. The two things are entirely separate.
Wow... so Scalia believes that torture is not a crime because you aren't technically being "punished."
Apparently that means cruel and unusual treatment is okay, but if it's "punishment", then it's not.
Clearly the framers of the constitution phrased this with the word "punishment" because it is only those circumstances that cruel and unusual treatment is likely to occur. It does not mean that cruel and unusual treatment elsewhere is okay.
This is not originalism, this is legal BS.
Spudst3r 1 week ago
Gotta love that smile at the end: "That's my view, and it happens to be correct."
dthomas9444 2 weeks ago
So unless the torturer says "this is your punishment for not telling me the truth" it's not cruel or unusual to beat a person to death?
singlesxynfree 1 month ago
Bah, whoever posted this is too stupid to distinguish punishment from violence, and can't tell his dick from his elbow if he thinks that what Scalia is saying means that he thinks torture is unconstitutional.
cyberpolice9000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edenstore Under "enhanced interrigation" (which Scalia endorses), Scalia himself would offer entirely different responses to these questions. I wonder why?
Sadists are notoritous for hurting others, but not wanting to be hurt themselves. Remember Osama bin Laden's heroic last moments? He was hiding behind women to save his own skin. Scalia would do the same.
zerogullibility 2 months ago
his grandson is a great boy
roxanarox5 2 months ago
what's the policeman punishing you for? He's punishing you for not telling him the information that he wants.
parkplace6677 2 months ago
He is a smug and arrogant son of a bitch.
loulou2lou 2 months ago
This is very bizarre.
mistax2k 3 months ago
what a DOUCHE BAG! this is a good reason why i cannot say the united states is not the greatest country in the world....its run by people like this scum bag. smh
live4pce 3 months ago
@live4pce You do realize that your double-negative statement created a positive one that is the same as you saying "The United States IS the greatest country in the world", don't you? I also suggest that you realize how admirable of an individual Mr. Scalia truly is. Back to your community college, sir/mam.
DBMunplugged 3 months ago
@DBMunplugged Simple typing error on my part, but you realize the point I was trying to make. Torture is illegal for a reason and its people like this who try and justify it that give this country a bad name. I didn't go to a community college. I'm guessing that is supposed to be an insult because I have a different opinion than you? Good day.
live4pce 3 months ago
@live4pce He didn't justify torture. He said that it is not unconstitutional, which is correct. It is not his job to decide what is justified and by the way what does "justified" even mean? If you think that the job of a supreme court justice is to decide what is morally justified or not then you do not understand the separation of powers. If you want to make torture unconstitutional, fine, pass an amendment that says so explicitly.
dragan221 3 months ago in playlist More videos from frickprogress 2
@dragan221 Cruel and unusual punishment is expressly forbidden in the constitution. I think it's pretty obvious that torture is punishment for not following a certain pattern of behavior
FootDanielLight 1 month ago
@FootDanielLight The Constitution as originally understood could have been specifying punishment as penalty for a crime. Torture, while being an ambiguous term is a technique used in Interrogation. Interrogation is not a penalty for a crime, but part of a investigatory process in identifying who will be prosecuted and then punished for the crime.
LexPhilogus 3 weeks ago
@live4pce Run by...? Dude, what planet are you living on? And if you are a citizen of US, why the hell don't you know how your country works?
lordviorio 2 months ago
Comment removed
zerogullibility 3 months ago
The reporter seems to have just as condescending an attitude as Scalia has.
edenstore 3 months ago
Sometimes I wish there WAS a hell for this son of a bitch to go to after he finally ends his miserable life here in Earth.
zerogullibility 3 months ago
@zerogullibility Wouldn't it be easier just to enact a law that prohibits torture? Given that laws already exist prohibting torture, and that Scalia said he opposes torture personally, why does he need to go to hell about it?
edenstore 3 months ago
@edenstore Under "enhanced interrigation" (which Scalia endorses), Scalia himself would offer entirely different responses to these questions. I wonder why?
Sadists are notoritous for hurting others, but not wanting to be hurt themselves. Remember Osama bin Laden's heroic last moments? He was hiding behind women to save his own skin. Scalia would do the same.
zerogullibility 3 months ago
@zerogullibility And this relate to the arguments how? Classic ad hominem.
XZohar123 2 months ago
See: "Citizens United and Fat Cat Scalia"
haldonrichardson1 3 months ago
Thank you for posting this, frickprogress.
writersblock26 4 months ago
Punishment: where an agent of the government by virtue of authority deriving from (and directly related to) a criminal conviction as a result of the conviction the agent of the government intentionally inflicts pain or otherwise causes defendant to suffer some consequence ordinarily considered unpleasant. This is technically different from torture, but I get frustrated at Scalia's lack of grace in explaining the difference. Maybe he felt he needn't explain, but condescension is disrespectful.
order2khaos 4 months ago
@Helotes420 I wouldn't be shocked if he were.
Adnaana 4 months ago
Antonin "Benito" Scalia at his best!
DelValle1980 4 months ago
This guy is democrats worst nightmare
3888799 4 months ago
nice jerky smile at the end.
notmuchseemsoriginal 5 months ago
If you continue to argue this, save by means of some extremely novel approach that I certainly cannot imagine, you will be in danger of committing precisely what you earlier accused Scalia of : arguing in bad faith.
Onieracraft 5 months ago
i am disappoint
MrTydrag 5 months ago
You know if you think about it he SORTA has a point
strawberEfieldz4ever 5 months ago
@strawberEfieldz4ever i really agree...sadly. I'm extremely liberal, hate this guy with a passion, but his definition of the word punishment really is correct.
theguynextdoor61 5 months ago
this guys a fucking idiot. If you need me to explain why then you are probably a fucking idiot as well.
Kiddeth 6 months ago
The term punishment in a legal context refers to the sentence you received after being found guilty of a crime. The sentence is the "punishment" for breaking the law. Scalia's point is torture is not a sentence and, therefore, is not punishment. It is categorically distinct and beyond the scope of any legal definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
kemar207 6 months ago
Scalia is a lightweight and profoundly under-qualified to be in the Supreme Court. The more I here him talk, the more I realize that we are living in an age of mediocrity. We elected and re-elected a president that could barely put two words together in a conversation. We have three Supreme Court Justices that are not up to the task, intellectually (Scalia, Roberts and "out-to-lunch" Thomas).
txmoney 6 months ago
The news is so motherfucking retarded "He's EVEN delving into issues like torture!!!"--- He has to. He's a Supreme Court judge, you stupid bitch.
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
This man is shameful. I can't believe the bull he's spewing.
ehealthy222 6 months ago
I wish they tied electrodes to his testicles during the interview and wiped that slimy grin off his face.
m0nkey13 6 months ago
It isn't unconstitutional because he isn't punishing you because you are innocent.
TheRealLinkShady 7 months ago
lol
TheRealLinkShady 7 months ago
*to
Califacience 7 months ago
The Fudgist should be waterboarded immediately.
Tsnore 7 months ago
@Tsnore
Journalists at Fox News have voluntarily subjected themselves to water-boarding. That is my personal definition of Torture. Torture is anything that an anchor at a news-station would be unwilling to voluntarily subject themselves too.
Califacience 7 months ago
@Califacience A U.S. citizen, WHITE no less, will "voluntarily subject himself" to waterboarding because he knows that his fellow white Americans are the ones performing the act. They will be careful not to injure him for fear of suit and out of common affinity for him as a wealthy, white American. He assumes no risk whatsoever in "subjecting" himself to an act performed by his friends and countrymen, especially when he is not suspected of having committed a crime.
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
@MIvarsson99
Obviously in any situation like this a release would have to be signed.
But you have changed the subject from the essential nature of the method to issues of excess and such.
Would for example, any Fox news anchor ever agree to have their finger nails removed (another well known method of torture) if it was done "responsibly"? The very fact that we are talking about HOW it is done is quite revealing.. Real torture does not have risk, it is the object of risk.
Califacience 6 months ago
@Califacience No. I have not changed the subject at all. I am suggesting that the mental stress and terror inflicted upon the detainee must be taken into account, when gauging whether or not the conduct constitutes torture. And the innocent, AMERICAN news reporters who willfully subject themselves to the methods are not afraid because they know 1) They can stop the procedure whenever they wish. 2) That the captor has not intent to kill or severely injure them. 3) And indeed, that the captor..
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
@MIvarsson99 Well what can i say, I disagree with you because I believe that torture is a physical act.
Califacience 6 months ago
@Califacience Well that's a pretty absurd view. Even the Justice Department under BUSH acknowledged that infliction of mental anguish is a component of torture.
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
@Califacience ....and 3) that the U.S. is TRYING TO PROVE THE SAFETY OF THEIR METHODS.
So your whole argument about signing a "release" is moot. The government has an interest in making sure reporters and other persons who wilfully subject themselves to torturous methods are kept safe. If they die, the general public will turn against the administration and decry the interrogation methods as draconian.
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
@MIvarsson99
There is a bit of Sophistry here, you are distracting from the core issue of the nature of the procedure and incorporating wider issues of environment that will remain regardless of whether the procedure is used. I speak specifically of the ignorance of the captive of the intent his captors. I am certain the Bush administration does not take the position that the captive must be assured that his life is safe IN GENERAL.
it does not see the absence of this knowledge as torture.
Onieracraft 5 months ago
@Onieracraft Your point is a stupid one, which is probably why it took me this long to respond.
The Department of Justice crafts arguments for legal issues that are likely to arise. The questionable legality of the waterboarding procedure was such an issue. The "general safety" of the detainment camps were not a pressing concern because providing an unsafe detainment facility is a not a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Torture and degrading treatment IS.
MIvarsson99 3 months ago
@Onieracraft Secondly, you other point: that certain environmental factors (such as the inherent fear of being captured by an enemy force during an armed conflict) are a constant and therefore irrelevant, is likewise stupid. Simply because a certain circumstance or condition is universally applicable to all armed conflicts, does not mean that that factor is irrelevant. The fear one feels when captured by the enemy is real and palpable. I will not let you so casually and unartfully dismiss it
MIvarsson99 3 months ago
So looking beyond the essential nature of the act and factoring in these psychological considerations, whether or not something is torture now becomes a matter of the personal preference and of the old Sorites paradox. is holding him in custody without assuring him that he is completely safe torture? Certainly if you add to that loud screaming, or banging things, which easily gives the impression that Physical violence is to follow, it would have to qualify.
Onieracraft 5 months ago
@MIvarsson99 If you raise the race card in this context, you'll raise it anywhere.
edenstore 3 months ago
@edenstore Nope. Not true. I raise race as an issue when it is logically applicable to the situation. In the context of torturing islamic terrorist suspects, race is certainly an issue that must be discussed. Rather than regurgitating stale talking points and cliches, such as "race card," you should have explained why race does not apply to this situation. Get a mind of your own.
MIvarsson99 3 months ago
Fat bastard, sit in your office and have another doughnut
Holland82908italy 8 months ago
Didn't watch the video, just skipped to the end.
"That's my view, and it happens to be correct."
Whatever the f*ck he was going on about, is now officially wrong.
RazorSRaider 8 months ago
punishing you for not telling you the information. Here Scalia. I solved the big puzzle for you. Stop with the non-sense that torture is constitutoinal.
jc198802 8 months ago
Lmfao "thats my view and im correct" sadly i believe in tortue if they have valuable info. I also think our prision system is too good. Other countries prision system are truly cruel and unusual
3888799 8 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy, wrong.
In constituional terms, we are referring specifically to the law. How can you get punished in law?????????
Constituional=LAW
How do we get punished in the law? If we break it correct.
Therefore, were those people breaking laws?? Okay then, proven
Iobi123 9 months ago
They are barking up the wrong tree, the constitution grants us a right against self incrimination and applying physical inducement to talk undermines that right. I disagree with Judge Scalia, but I can see his line of reasoning.
Zyworski 9 months ago
you guys are saying punishment, is mistreatment.
law says after guilty
Iobi123 9 months ago
@XXXXXX856, torture in the beginning of the constitution, was constitutional. therefore, im guessing that they did give the definition of punishment. furthermore, punishment is a penalty. in this casae, penalties are consequences of crimes(e.g. burglary, murder) etc. from the other perspective, you can say that when someone is cross-examined they are "punished", just because they are being "mistreated".
they refer to punishment as a mistreatment.
Iobi123 9 months ago
@Iobi123 No. Punishment is something done in retaliation for not getting the desired outcome, not just mistreatment. If someone is tortured for not talking, that is punishment. Regardless:
This is Scalia's reasoning: Military tortures a 10 year old girl for having blonde hair - "Well, having blonde hair isn't a crime, and she wasn't found guilty. So the torture was constitutional."
I'm sure this is exactly what the framers intended!
BenkaiDebussy 9 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy I made the point in response to your other post, but the same one applies to this one. What you are describing would almost certainly be a denial of due process and entirely unconstitutional. But that conclusion does NOT rely on an 8th Amendment argument (i.e. its not cruel and unusual punishment). That is the ONLY point being made here. No one said torture is legal. No one said torture is justified. All that has been said is that the 8th Amendment alone doesn't prohibit it
dak879 9 months ago
"Torture isn't punishment".
Right. So when one of us gets waterboarded, we should smile and say "Thank you, sir, can I have another go?"
Ringo84 10 months ago
@Ringo84 Its a semantic point he is making. Punishment in the legal sense is the imposition of hardship in response to some form of misconduct (i.e. you steal something and your punishment in response to your misconduct is a fine). Someone who is being tortured is not being given a hardship in response to misconduct. Torture has nothing to do with responding to some prior misconduct. In a colloquial sense, sure, you can call it punishment. But in a legal sense, thats just not the right word
dak879 10 months ago
@dak879
So in that case would it not be classified as assault? If punishment can only be a response to misconduct that has been deemed illegal by a civilian or military court. Then that means that any physical or psychological abuse is unjustified. What are the rights of ANYONE who is detained? Surely they are not to be beaten if you can't even classify them as someone who ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME. There is no such thing as limbo. It is just a slick way of not directly confronting the truth.
drbayoms 9 months ago
@dak879
Are you suggesting that a person detained is subject to torture because they have not been found guilty of a crime. Because as you stated punishment can only be administered after someone is found guilty. So, you Americans can pull anyone off the streets and subject them to ANY means you feel necessary to attain information on a crime? Because they are not formerly charged with anything the means by which you receive (or not receive) that information is in some sort of legal limbo?
drbayoms 9 months ago
@dak879
I can tell by your writing that you are quite intelligent. So I know you must be smarter than that. Scalia is being coy and dishonest. Regardless of political affiliation.
drbayoms 9 months ago
@drbayoms You may be misunderstanding the argument. No one is saying torture is justified. This video is making a very narrow point. She suggested that the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" encompasses torture. But torture and punishment aren't legally the same. Thus, the sole conclusion here is that the 8th Amend. doesn't prohibit torture. That does NOT mean that torture is condoned. Nor does it imply that torture isn't prohibited based on some OTHER constitutional section
dak879 9 months ago
@Ringo84 That isn't what he is suggesting. All he is saying is that the 8th Amendment doesn't appear to ban torture (since it only bans "punishment"). He is NOT saying that torture is allowed. And he doesn't preclude the conclusion that torture may be illegal based on some other section of the Constitution. He is merely saying that, if it is illegal, it wouldn't be because of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Very different than saying "torture is justified"
dak879 9 months ago
what a fucking scumfuck
shatazer 10 months ago
at least there's one good thing that comes from this: we can immediately determine if our president is worthy by whether or not he immediately orders the assassination of every single supreme court judge
Crackxyx 10 months ago
What a sorry sob. He will receive ten-fold what he has given.
Licmycat 10 months ago
@baldurus1, he doesnt care, he doesnt look at her because she's on a different intellectual level than him
Iobi123 10 months ago
He cant even look her in the eyes, he knows he's full of it.
baldurus1 10 months ago
this is so beautiful.
IsaacH1273 10 months ago
As a pro-lifer I really hate it when idiots like this make us look bad.
MrAbolitionist 10 months ago
torture this piece of shit and lets see how fast he changes his opinion
redmanwhiterabbit 10 months ago
Lmao @ that smug smile at the end.
Luchini731 11 months ago
'That's my view, and it happens to be correct."
Yeah. This is why every reasonable person in the world hates you, Scalia. You are scum. You sit there like the government's pimple and blindly defend the one ideology that happens to be eating this country alive. Fuck you, no one deserves to be ruled by your idiotic cerebral discharge, you shitty little bastard bigot.
TheLiberalSoup 11 months ago
Scalia is a bro
littlekidlover569 11 months ago
This guy is insane! Too many hits off the old crack pipe I guess.
helobelow 11 months ago
Scalia cannot believe he is sitting through an interview with such a lib-tard
mharrin5507 11 months ago
ANTONIN "KOCH SUCKER" SCALIA...
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 11 months ago
Scalia is badass. Dumb bitch interviewer is a dumb bitch.
MastersOfInfinity 11 months ago
This guy's an asshole...
PERIZ99 1 year ago
getting beat up by a police officer does not implicate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. as Newscholar pointed out, that clause deals with sentencing. that doesn't mean it's okay for a police officer to beat someone up. Police brutality, while certainly illegal, has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment.
navid500 1 year ago
this guy is a fucking tool.
sagequan 1 year ago
is this the persona that seth macfarlane heisted to create the peter griffin character?
iago68 1 year ago
Scalia is absolutely right on the "punishment point". People so easily mix up words. Torture and punishment are very different. I don't particularly like the man's attitude, but he is completely correct on this point.
dak879 1 year ago
But healthcare is???
Marakulous43 1 year ago
First point - "Punishment" means the punishment or sentence that a judge would hand down on you in a court of law, not the military "torturing" terrorists.
Second point - Assume that "Cruel and unusual punishment" did apply to military questioning, and a suspect WAS waterboarded, what then??? Our system of laws would handle this situation by defining what torture is and what the appropriate (ironic) punishment would be for tortuing a human being.
jimschrader52999 1 year ago
He sat there and let 911 happen, bigtime inside job and did nothing, they wouldn't even make obama show his records. This man is a hood. He is a puppet to the rockefeller rothschild cabal.
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
Scalia is a bastard. He is like a spoiled little bully. I had no idea our courts were this insane. Listen to this man! Define punishment. If he's not guilty scalia says its not punishment so it's okay. I guess if he's guilty and he's getting abused it's punishment therefore it's illegal. This man is off the hook. We need to impeach this sob.
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
Whether you like him or not...whether you are liberal or conservative...democrat or republican..it doesnt matter to him.....he follows the Constitution. This man does not rule according to his opinion....but according to the Consitution. He is....ALWAYS...right.....and he has 6 other Supreme Court Justices behind him, to make sure he is....ALWAYS....right.
briangrenon2 1 year ago
Good God; The U.S is doomed!!!!
55otter 1 year ago
@55otter lol
PersephoneSwimming 1 year ago
How in the hell did we allow a mafia don to be on the Supreme Court:"Torture isn't unconstitutional" etc.?
freeOJ2007 1 year ago
Good work out there Scalia, have another cheese steak.
courtlung1 1 year ago 2
Why doesn't Scalia run for senate or presidency as a republican instead of being a judge. Judges are supposed to be impartial.
MrWsad 1 year ago
Scalia clearly suffers from dementia when claiming that women and gays are not protected by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment protects "ANY PERSON" ! Which part of ANY doesn't he understand. He is the best example why there should be an age ort term limit for Supreme Court Justices.
bvongrabe 1 year ago
Scalia might be evil-hearted, a prankster, or senile. His saying that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect genders or sexualities from discrimination, that torture is not unconstitutional, reminds me of Chief Justice Taney once attesting that a black man in America has no rights a white man is bound to respect. But Scalia might not be a cretin. He could just be having fun, playing devil's advocate. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, his statements are still very inappropriate.
parafleet 1 year ago 15
@parafleet wow, good job summing it up. i had a similar sense but couldn't quite put it into words.... fundamentally he is being dishonest, and he knows it, and he thinks no one is smart enough or powerful enough to catch him. lesley stahl is balless here in her capitulation to his word games. punishment is punishment, come on!!!!!!!!!!
PersephoneSwimming 1 year ago
@parafleet Hes right though. The U.S. constitution supports the opposite of what most liberals think it does. It actually is AGAINST protecting genders and sexualities and races from discrimination insofar as those people are not physically harmed by such discrimination. discrimination may be wrong. But its not the governments place to legislate morality. Its to ensure peace. To stop violence and theft. But people can call each other nigger all they want. Freedom of opinion is very important.
Porojukaha 1 year ago
@parafleet You are an idiot OR you know nothing about law. You can't just read into the constitution everything that you think is required to protect all the minorities in country and you cant just read into the constitution whatever moral values you happen to have.
kwalk30 1 year ago
@parafleet This would be true except that he legislates the same way too. Good effort though.
numnunums 10 months ago
@parafleet
Scalia has this crazy notion that under the rule of law, we ought to be governed by the law, rather than our personal convictions about what we think is right or wrong (unless we change the law to conform to those convictions about what is right and wrong).
Archaic i know.
Califacience 8 months ago
@Califacience Then I hope you meet objective justice face to face for the rest of your life.
parafleet 8 months ago
@parafleet
And I hope you DON'T meet justice defined by the random whim of another for the rest of your life.
Califacience 8 months ago
@Califacience It would really be a blessing, after all, if you had the privilege, to say nothing of practical courage, to live by the letter of your idealistic absolutes.
parafleet 8 months ago
@parafleet
Perhaps you missed the word "ANOTHER" (as in "ANOTHER" person's ). Not Yours.
Califacience 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Califacience Perhaps you missed the point of my initial comment.
parafleet 8 months ago
@parafleet I think the thing that was lost on everyone here, including the reporter, is that Scalia is very precise in his understanding of language (in this case, with regard to the meaning of the word "punishment"). This is lost on most people, who are mentally too lazy to bother themselves with the fine distinctions between related words. Once words are used sloppily, these distinctions are blurred, and there can be no clear understanding of anything.
jguar17944 7 months ago
@jguar17944 I take "practical heart" in the U.S. Constitution. That's what all of this means to me. Laws to protect U.S. citizens, to protect those whom U.S. citizens deal with, have only the scope, the range proclaimed by the appointed officials who interpret them. Of course, over time this has built up an apparent fortification of positive precedent. But watch how a few rogue judges, in a society stressed by "emergency," will subvert the good that has gone before. Still, Scalia's playing.
parafleet 7 months ago
@parafleet There is no excuse for the type of tripe that spews from Antonin's mouth.
Devil's advocate?!?! A judge is supposed to interpret the LAW and do so in good faith.
He is not to be an "advocate" for ANYTHING other than a good faith interpretation of the Constitution and federal statutory laws.
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
@MIvarsson99 In a primetime interview he can be anything he wants to be. He's off the clock there and this is America. As for me, I don't think the U.S. Constitution protects torture, etc., and that's beside the point. Take care.
parafleet 6 months ago
@parafleet On the clock or not, he would not permitted to disclose the contents of classified government information, which he may be privy to on account of his status as a high court judge. So I guess some rules DO APPLY even "off the clock."
ALSO: clearly, he's expressing the same view here that he would espouse in an official ruling on the subject. If you'd ever read a Scalia opinion, you would know that this interview is consistent with the way he rules on cases.
MIvarsson99 6 months ago
@MIvarsson99
But that issue aside, what is your counterargument to the distinction that Scalia is making here?
Onieracraft 5 months ago
@Onieracraft My counter-argument to Scalia is the same exact argument that Leslie Stahl makes here. The police officer is a state actor working for the government. He is torturing the accused in part, based on his belief that the accused is guilty of the crime. Case closed. A government actor is abusing a person based on his belief that the person is guilty of the wrongdoing for which they have been accused. Therefore it is PUNISHMENT, cruel and unusual punishment.
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
@MIvarsson99 Uhh no, the case is not closed. "Punishment" is a legal term as it is used in the 8th amendment. It can only be exacted as a consequence of criminal conviction, period. Read about it's history, it is actually a limit on the discretion of judges.
Onieracraft 5 months ago
@Onieracraft A proper time to take note: Instead of telling someone simply to "read about its history," it would be better to point to specific historical texts to prove your point. Then you would have to prove to me that the framers intended that the word "punishment" ONLY be used in references to judges administering sentences.
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
@MIvarsson99
Do you imagine that law began with the American Constitution? This is a classical legal definition of the word "punishment" that predates the framers. Presumably it was the intent of the framers for others to understand them, which would not be the case if they took classical legal terms, privately redefined them and then never conveyed the meaning of those private definitions to anyone. At the very least they would have to explain their departure for the common usage.
Onieracraft 5 months ago
The origin of the eighth amendment itself (not of the legal term "punishment" which is much older) can be found in the 1689 English Bill or Rights, which the amendment simply paraphrases.
"And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments have been inflicted."
Onieracraft 5 months ago
@Onieracraft A proper time to take note: Instead of telling someone simply to "read about its history," it would be better to point to specific historical texts to prove your point. Then you would have to prove to me that the framers intended that the word "punishment" ONLY be used in references to judges administering sentences.
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
@MIvarsson99 Excuse me, I should have quoted the sentence before my last quote for further clarification of the fact that we are discussing criminal trial " And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders."
Onieracraft 5 months ago
@Onieracraft Without realizing it, the argument you have made is this: Torture inflicted upon a detained person, by law enforcement officers, is not cruel and unusual punishment because SCOTUS says that it is not.
I DISAGREE with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th amendment. So, you cannot claim that I am wrong simply because the Court disagrees with me. Without realizing it, that is what you are doing. That is why you stated, as though it were fact: "It can ONLY be exacted as..."
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onieracraft Without realizing it, the argument you have made is this: Torture inflicted upon a detained person, by law enforcement officers, is not cruel and unusual punishment because SCOTUS says that it is not.
I DISAGREE with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th amendment. So, you cannot claim that I am wrong simply because the Court disagrees with me. Without realizing it, that is what you are doing. That is why you stated, as though it were fact: "It can ONLY be exacted as..."
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
@Onieracraft You wrote of punishment "It can only be exacted as a consequence of criminal conviction"----Here you are simply PARROTING back the current state of the law. Yes, I know. The federal courts of this country have declared torture and abuse inflicted by law enforcement not to be "punishment" under the 8th amendment.
Parroting back their rule does not prove ANYTHING. You have not shown that the courts are correct in their interpretation of the eigth amendment.
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
@Onieracraft You wrote of punishment "It can only be exacted as a consequence of criminal conviction"----Here you are simply PARROTING back the current state of the law. Yes, I know. The federal courts of this country have declared torture and abuse inflicted by law enforcement not to be "punishment" under the 8th amendment.
Parroting back their rule does not prove ANYTHING. You have not shown that the courts are correct in their interpretation of the eigth amendment.
MIvarsson99 5 months ago
@parafleet How the hell can you say that he is playing devil's advocate, when he is casting votes on the significant legal issues of our day, which shape our society? Terms like "playing devil's advocate" are reserved for people who, on occasion, publicly advocate positions which they do not believe. Scalia is doing more than mere advocacy. He is VOTING and writing opinions that have profound consequences. Sorry to go off like that but you should really look up terms before using them.
MIvarsson99 3 months ago
A torturer is punishing you for not answering him. Hence unjust punishment
MyMatthewt 1 year ago
@MyMatthewt EXACTLY. He is punishing you for not answering him. He is punishing you for his BELIEF that you have committed a crime. He is punishing you for giving him information which he deems false etc.
Somehow, because he is wearing a badge instead of a robe, he is not capable of violating the 8th amendment?!?! This is pure lunacy.
MIvarsson99 3 months ago
Scalia is a disagreeable, cantankerous, old fart. His ego is as gargantuan as his opinions are labrynthine. Yet, it is only him and a handful of other men, who have saved the Republic from socialism and preserved your rights to criticize public officials.
ebonics4everyone 1 year ago
what a swine...
rustyturnbuckle 1 year ago
I believe that the most overlooked amendment in the Bill Of Rights applies here. Amendment 9 reads: "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Though the constitution doesn't specifically mention torture the 9th amendment certainly should give pause to its use. At least on the American People. Though the courts did throw out a case recently when torture was used saying it violated the 5th amendment.
sunsabre 1 year ago
Are you making the point that we don't own our own bodies? And equality is a tenant of our republic. So much so that the framers put the equal protection clause in the constitution. And I never said that U.S. law applies to other countries actions, but ours and our agents no matter where they are. The military courts must adhere to the same laws of civilian courts. And the military courts are subject to the Supreme Court just as any other court.
sunsabre 1 year ago
He is correct, technically, because the police are not part of the "punishment" part of the system, the judiciary is. The police don't hand down sentences. Torturing would be under the "treatment" the police give you.
Plus, this doen't apply to foreign nationals in a foreign nation jailed by that nation, or foreign nationals in another nation captured as enemy combatants on the battlefield or attacking our soldiers.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff However, under the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated." And torture does violate personal security.
sunsabre 1 year ago
@NoGuff However,under the fourth amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated". And torture violates personal security.
The first act of congress was to adopt the Declaration of Independence. In it Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal". American law applies to any action taken by any agent of the u.s. So, our system of law applies to anyone we interact with. There are no exceptions for soldiers or "enemy combatants."
sunsabre 1 year ago
@sunsabre
"secure in their persons"
--Good point. But doesn't that regard "search and seizure?' As in owneship.
"torture violates personal security"
--That's a point that could be made.
"all men are created equal"
--Tha'ts a philosophy, not a law. U.S. law doesn't apply to people in other countries. If it did, then we'd have to bestow automatic U.S. citizenship to them all today.
"There are no exceptions"
--Then why do soldiers go through military courts with their own laws?
NoGuff 1 year ago
Scalia is awesome! :D
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
Scalia is a fascist....Case closed
medesdaddy 1 year ago
try taking a class on constitutional law, or short of that, try reading the constitution. scalia is absolutely right in saying that the constitution does not prohibit torture of detainees. the 8th amendment does prohibit torture as punitive measures against criminals. the constitution does not attempt to act as a ban for all abhorrent activity. this is where state and federal statutes come into play. JUSTICES ARE NOT LAWMAKERS. don't blame them for showing judicial restraint.
nicky2coats 1 year ago 3
@nicky2coats Try finding a constitutional law class where the actual text of the Constitution is read.
jessebickeldotcom 1 year ago
@nicky2coats I agree. Both sides during the civil war used torture extensively. Can you imagine if Lincoln or Davis were put on trial by their own people as war criminals. Can you imagine what would happen if international councils against torture were around then. Uh Mr. Sherman you can't burn down people's houses and torment the GA towns or CSA you can't starve USA POWs to make them talk. Can you imagine if that were so!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@nicky2 coats Im not surprized by his comments right now because if you hear him ask lawyers in cases, he makes important and precise questions and comments
younchoi2013 1 year ago
antonin is sooooooooooo conservative lol
klambert198 1 year ago
There is interrogation. There is torture. I'm confused at what's being said... So the lady says that punishment and torture can be the same. Scalia says torture is torture and is not the same as punishment. I don't understand why that would mean he supports torture. Scalia doesn't really voice his own opinion all the time, but rather just says the truth in a logical manner.
AKAnanaki 1 year ago
First, Scalia is 100% correct. Second, if ever I want to read the beliefs and screeds of incredibly moronic group of people, I will return to this video and look at all the comments saying Scalia supports torture.
darthurone 1 year ago
@darthurone
Scalia is an "original intent" guy. Fine, but to be consistent, he would have to agree that Dred Scott was correctly decided, and he would also disagree with Brown v. Board.
Milwauken 1 year ago
Scalia is a real creep. He is 74 but doesn't look like he is going to drop dead any time soon.
jusguyz 1 year ago
This shit makes me ashamed to be Republican
WillMio 1 year ago
I love this guy
Darroth 1 year ago
Justices shouldn't serve for life
They should at most have 20 year terms and then denied or confirmed by the senate for the next one.
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
So my friend knew where this bomb was planted in the city, and the cops hauled him in before it was about to go off and they kept punishing him until he told them where the bomb was, he kept getting punished until his punishment was up and they let him go because the punishment didn't work.
andro89 1 year ago
Torture has been used as punishment since time immemorial. Moreover, policemen and soldiers can get carried away when they have a suspect in custody who they believe is guilty in some respect, or simply uncooperative. They have not only the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment but ALSO the right to due process - which would be violated if the punishment of torture is applied before a verdict in court. Then throw in the equal protection clause, and torture is out.
LordZentei 1 year ago
I am as liberal as it gets, but Scalia is completely right on this one. It's a play on words. punishment is after having been found guilty, NOT before. If the constitution had said "Cruel and unusual treatment" then Scalia would be wrong, but it says PUNISHMENT and therefore he is quite right, due to a play on words. Did he say he supports torture? NO! He said that torture is not the same as punishment, and if people bothered to actually look at the difference in words...
Newscholar 1 year ago 14
@Newscholar Firstly, so what if he said he doesn't support torture? There is no such thing as deception? He's a republican freak. Secondly, it is punishment. Someone asks you for information. You refuse to give information. He punishes you for refusing to give information.
MrWsad 1 year ago
@MrWsad I do not disagree with your first premise. I despise Scalia and nearly everything he has ever said. But that does not take away from the fact that many words in the English language can be interpreted in different ways. To me, punishment is reserved after a pronouncement of guilt, and that if that case is not met it is... victimization, castigation, mortification, torture. But to me, punishment implies penalty, which implies a sentence of some form.
XXXXXXX856 10 months ago
@Newscholar
Semantics.
Smiffy008 11 months ago
@Smiffy008 And what is it exactly that you think allows lawyers and politicians to interperet the law as they wish? Semantics. It's the name of the game. If you don't pay attention to the little details, those who do will always spin circles around you. I know several lawmakers and have worked to pass a few pieces of legislation, and semantics are the name of the game. Try looking at a simple statutory law and you'll see exactly what I mean.
XXXXXXX856 10 months ago
@Newscholar Dude. Scalia is not right.
Person is asked to give information.
Person refuses to give information.
Person is punished for not giving information.
Person is asked again to give information.
MrWsad 11 months ago
@MrWsad And what you said has what exactly to do with the constitution? Did I say that I agreed with torture? No, I don't believe that I did. I was agreeing with Scalia's interpretation of the wording within the constitution, not the reality of torture. The two things are entirely separate.
XXXXXXX856 10 months ago