Author Topic: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"  (Read 824 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
"No! Who ever said torture is punishment?"

Totally dead ass. That was his response.


Thanks TDS.

max_cool

  • Member
Re: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2008, 02:12:13 AM »
umm, how IS torture punishment.

The same techniques employed in torture could be used to punish but that doesn't mean that torture is punishment. One can torture without punishing and punish without torture. Scalia is right, torture is not punishment

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
Re: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2008, 02:13:59 AM »
Well, that settles that! Onward, Guantanimo!

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2008, 03:21:45 AM »
Most legal types think the 5th Amendment bans torture, not the 8th.

I see the logic, but it's pretty silly.  If something is too cruel for punishment, how can it be legal as something other than punishment?  Especially if you're arguing from original intent.

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
Re: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2008, 10:43:07 AM »
Every response in this thread is more nuanced than his.


Tauntaun

  • I'm cute, you should be too.
  • Senior Member
Re: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2008, 11:35:20 AM »
I was watching that last night and laughing bitterly.  :'(
:)

APF

  • Senior Member
Re: "Justice Scalia, isn't torture cruel and unusual punishment?"
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2008, 01:00:56 PM »
I see the logic, but it's pretty silly.  If something is too cruel for punishment, how can it be legal as something other than punishment?

Isn't that like saying, if A is A why isn't it B?  It doesn't seem like your counter-argument follows.
***