Tags for This Article:

Torture (1182)  Justice (1097)  Ignorance (168) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ;
Add to My Group
May 2, 2008 at 08:00:58

Scalia was right, 60 Minutes Stahl wasn't, re 4th Amendment & torture

by Ed Tubbs     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

Justice Antonin Scalia – 1, Leslie Stahl – 0, and the judge was right..

 

Last Sunday (April 27), 60 Minutes broadcast a segment that featured Leslie Stahl interviewing Justice Scalia.

 

I’m no admirer of the “Get over it, move on, that was so long ago” (Gore v Bush decision) Supreme Court justice. In fact, I sort of really don’t like the guy. He frightens me, the way he can and does confect to the far Right. But when Ms. Stahl raised the question of the constitutionality of torture as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment,” not only did the 6o Minutes veteran demonstrate her tragic ignorance of the Constitution, the nearly dumbfounded way millions reacted in disbelief to what Scalia posited demonstrates the tragic ignorance that pervades our country!

 

Justice Scalia was 100% correct: the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual PUNISHMENT,” and torture, unless employed as “punishment,” by definition is not covered by that amendment.

 

Here’s how Stahl should have raised the issue. The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions that outlaw a variety of behaviors. The conventions retain all the characteristics necessary to be deemed a treaty signed by the United States. Now, per the constitution’s Article VI, treaties “made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land!” (my emphasis and exclamation point)

 

Question 1. Does Ms. Stahl make it a practice, entering an interview session so poorly prepared and ill informed on an issue that a high school class in basic civics would/should cover?

 

Question 2. Including both President Bush and Scalia, is there anyone so daft or uneducated he or she cannot fairly easily comprehend the phrase “supreme law of the land”?

 

Again folks, read your Constitution. Please do not attempt to suggest you are a “good citizen” if you don’t even know the easiest basics concerning how your country is supposed to be structured. Being familiar with the Constitution is the easiest task imaginable, but if you aren’t even that interested . . .

 

Oh hell, tell you what, I’ll make it easy for you. Follows is a link whereby you can go right to it, then print it. The choice to be or remain ignorant is prima facie evidence of the most contemptible stupidity. You decide where you want to be.

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/

  

— Ed Tubbs

     Palm Springs, CA

 

An "Old Army Vet" and liberal, qua liberal, with a passion for open inquiry in a neverending quest for truth unpoisoned by religious superstitions. Per Voltaire: "He who can lead you to believe an absurdity can lead you to commit an atrocity."

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments

GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, garage rock music and rare/unusual vinyl records.
Gustav WynnGW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, garage rock music and rare/unusual vinyl records.

Fear in a post 9-11 world trumps basic human rights?

Stahl probably wishes she could redo that line of questioning today because of the way Scalia handled her. It struck me immediately, however that torture could be quite easily defined as punishment, depending how it is administered, and would probably account for most typical interrogations.

I bring this up because Scalia, and Mr. Tubbs seem to be splitting hairs over the precise use of the word "punishment" in this case. So let's debate this:

If a prisoner was convicted of a crime and then tortured (beaten, waterboarded, etc.), that would be an interpretation of "punishment" that we can all agree should be prohibited.

But if a suspect is brought into an interrogation, asked a question and then beaten or waterboarded for not providing the "correct" information, this is a definition of "punishment" that human rights advocates, Constitutional scholars and ethical people everywhere feel is prohibited. Let's go further because this hinges solely on the Supreme Court's equivocation over the interpreted meaning of the word "punishment" in this context.

If a prisoner revealed the proper information during interrogation, it is assumed he would be not be beaten or waterboarded further. If, however, he does not give his captors the desired information, and abuse is administered, it means the interrogator has acted as judge and jury, deciding the interrogation must continue. The interrogators do this over and over, looking to condition the prisoner who will eventually talk because he wants to avoid further abuse.

On one hand, one could say the abuse is meant to make the prisoner give up the information. But the prisoner is being taught that if he doesn't answer correctly, there will be a consequence, another round of abuse...in other words, a punishment for not cooperating.

If we can all agree that prisoners who are struck or waterboarded for not answering the interrogator's question correctly, how then could we describe this cause and effect process without invoking the word punishment?

Also, what other primary documents give us insight as to the intentions of the founding fathers with respect to the 4th amendment? Did they torture for information? Did they condemn those who did?

And finally, what should today's lawmakers do about the controversy? I for one think America should abide by the the example of treatment we afforded our enemies throughout WW2, when combatants surrendered to American soldiers because they knew we respected basic human rights.

by Gustav Wynn (45 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 215 comments) on Friday, May 2, 2008 at 1:00:38 PM
 


*****************************************************



Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on su...

to see more of bio, click on member name

tabonsell*****************************************************



Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on su...

to see more of bio, click on member name

ON TORTURE

While Scalia seems to have a most morbid love of government power over rights of individuals, he appears to be correct on the torture issue.

The Eighth Amendment follows directly the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh, which all deal with trials and prosecutions (the Fifth and Sixth with criminal prosecutions and the Seventh with civil trials). It is logical that the cruel-and-unusual punishments ban is a reference to the punishments handed down on convictions.

Since Scalia is a strict fundamentalist on the Constitution, this appears to be his interpretation. Why he seems not to acknowledge treaties as the "supreme law of the land" is a mystery.

Incidentally, it is "cruel and unusual punishments"; the "s" at the end of "punishment" gives the phrase a whole different meaning from what it would mean is written "cruel and unusual punishment" which virtually everybody uses, including Scalia, who should know better.

"Cruel and unusual punishments" refers to plural punishments, cruel punishments and unusual punishments. To be otherwise, the phrase would have to be written "cruel-and-unusual punishment", which it is not. "Cruel and unusual punishment" is not literate because it suggests a compound adjective but is not handled in a proper fashion to be a compound adjective. It also makes it difficult to understand just what it covers when "cruel punishment" makes it clear what is covered while "unusual punishment" does the same.

It is unfortunate we have SCOTUS judges who misapply constitutional principles because they are incapable of mastering high-school English.

by tabonsell (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 234 comments) on Friday, May 2, 2008 at 1:52:26 PM
 


Just a housewife paying attention, that's me.
annabananaJust a housewife paying attention, that's me.

Torture isn't "punishment"? - nonsense..

You are punishing the victim for not telling you what you want to hear! How on earth could this have been made so complicated? 

 "Tell me what I want to hear, or I will hurt you!"

Could there BE any more primal or basic example of punishment than this?

by annabanana (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, May 2, 2008 at 3:11:30 PM
 


Al Krass coordinates the work of the Coalition for Peace Action in Bucks and Montgomery Counties. A formed United Church of Christ minister, he lives in Levittown PA.
Al KrassAl Krass coordinates the work of the Coalition for Peace Action in Bucks and Montgomery Counties. A formed United Church of Christ minister, he lives in Levittown PA.

Torture not punishment?

The Constitution is, lamentably, what its interpreters say it is, and those interpreters include too many "strict constructionists" and if we have such a (no pun intended) tortuous argument by this "Justice," it fits what the Roberts Court might, true to form, come up with if such a stupid argument reached them. Stahl was reading her Constitution in a way Jefferson would have supported, but Scalia has (cleverly? trickily?) thrown her a breaking ball.

I agree that the strongest argument for those of us who want to see torture become completely a thing of the past is based on the UN Convention against Torture, which uses enough words to become absolutely clear. And since the US is a signatory, it's part of the "supreme law of the land."

by Al Krass (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, May 2, 2008 at 8:57:46 PM
 


I am a college graduate, a loyal partiot of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a person whose convictions and pessimism drive my thought invoking others to think, and enjoy some politcal debate. I like truth even if it doesn't set you "free" in this US of A any longer. I do a bit of painting mostly in Acrylic. I do a bit of poetry writng mostly inspired by tragic thought. I do a ton of reading, mostly online. I am crippled, a female and AOL monitors my emails closely. I speak straightforwardly...

to see more of bio, click on member name

shirley reeseI am a college graduate, a loyal partiot of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a person whose convictions and pessimism drive my thought invoking others to think, and enjoy some politcal debate. I like truth even if it doesn't set you "free" in this US of A any longer. I do a bit of painting mostly in Acrylic. I do a bit of poetry writng mostly inspired by tragic thought. I do a ton of reading, mostly online. I am crippled, a female and AOL monitors my emails closely. I speak straightforwardly...

to see more of bio, click on member name

spin it

Six of the Justices are 'extreme conservatives legislating from the bench'. Now, where have you heard that but replace the conservative with liberal. The lies from the right have been stating this for almost 30 yrs; however, we haven't had a Liberal majority on the Supreme Court for over a decade or 2...or 3!

I am always disappointed every time the Supreme court has a ruling. It's all been Bush's way since he has been President. Our Supreme Court is so politicalized, it is far from neutral and they interpret the constitution far from what the Founding fathers intended.

Bush has violated the Torture laws and the constitution and no one does a single thing to hold him accountable. Fascism is alive and well in the US of A.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 198 comments) on Friday, May 2, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM
 


I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich for President. 
Ty ShlackmanI'm supporting Dennis Kucinich for President. 

Torture

Torture is illegal simply because it is an act of assault. Violence is only legal as an act of self defense against aggression. Using force or coercion in police interrogations violates the person's right to remain silent and violates the 5th amendment right not to incriminate oneself.

by Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 8:13:48 AM
 

 

6 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

 

 

 

 

Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls  
  

Articles Popularity:

Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush For Murder
by Linda Milazzo

A Declaration of Independence from the Government of the United States
by Anonymous

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream
by David Swanson

Fortis Prediction of US Bank Meltdown a Net Hoax: The Making of an Urban Legend
by Paul Haughey

POW/MIA Families Alleged McCain Assault: Senate Ethics Committee Failed to Investigate
by elliot cohen

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GAS REACHES 7 DOLLARS A GALLON ?
by Allen L Roland

Why were 'first responders' de-contaminated at the Pentagon?
by Len Hart

Ex Weapons Inspector: Iran Not Pursuing Nukes, But U.S. Will Attack Before '09
by Jason Leopold

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller

Free Energy and the Open Source Energy Movement
by jibbguy