Cruel and Unusual

Perhaps it's another example of the superficiality of our national debates that a Supreme Court Justice (Antonin Scalia) can claim that torture is not "cruel and unusual punishment" on national television and two days later hardly anyone's noticed (save Rolling Stone).

While Scalia claims he's no fan of torture, he fudges on the question of its Constitutionality claiming "defining it is going to be a nice trick."

What made this interview most "unusual," however, was Scalia's bizarre interpretation of what "punishment" means. Interrogation, it seems, doesn't qualify:

To the contrary...Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."

"Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…," Stahl says.

"And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.

"Sure," Stahl replies.

"What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…," Scalia says.

"Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know," Stahl says.

"It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don't say he's punishing you. What's he punishing you for?

While we certainly need to pay close attention to the words of the Constitution, I find it hard to believe this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the framers. If what really matters is the intent to "punish" rather than extract information, then a witness to terrorism could potentially be subjected to the most inhumane treatment (in order to get information about the terrorist) while the perpetrator would be spared such abuse.

(Even within Scalia's preposterous construction, torture is indeed a punishment for silence or obstruction.)

This is the same immoral reasoning behind the infamous "torture memos," which made the abuser's intent -- not his or her actions -- the benchmark for morality.

The thousands of Faithful Americans who signed a petition denouncing those memos may not be on the Supreme Court, but they know the United States has no business engaging in "cruel or unusual" behavior of any kind.

If only the government agreed.

Posted by Beth Dahlman

Originally posted at Faith in Public Life