In the interview, Scalia insists that the Eighth Amendment strictures against cruel and unusual punishment refer only to punishment; i.e., to the treatment of a prisoner who has been tried and convicted in a court of law and is now being punished via his judicially determined sentence. As the BBC and Raw Story report:
In the interview with the Law in Action programme on BBC Radio 4, he said it was "extraordinary" to assume that the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" - the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment - also applied to "so-called" torture.
"To begin with the constitution... is referring to punishment for crime. And, for example, incarcerating someone indefinitely would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime.... [But] is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to extract information that is crucial to the society?"
Justice Scalia argued that courts could take stronger measures when a witness refused to answer questions.
"I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?" he asked.
In his reference to a bomb in Los Angeles, Scalia is of course referring to that lodestone of modern jurisprudence, the torture-happy Fox TV fictional adventure show, "24." But setting aside for a moment Scalia's zealous promotion of this innovative legal philosophy (known in scholarly circles as the "Bauer Over Blackstone" Movement), let us concentrate instead on the practical applications that Scalia's insight affords us.
Scalia says that the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause only applies to those tried, convicted and sentenced in court -- and not to anyone else. Let's grant that premise (even though some cynics might say that it is actually a piece of, well, tortured logic offered up by a partisan hack and third-rate blowhard desperate to justify filthy crimes committed by his ideological comrades). What then would we do with cruel and unusual acts perpetrated on someone who has not been tried and sentenced in court? If those acts are not covered under the Eighth Amendment, where then would they fall?
Here we will emulate Judge Scalia's own example, and illustrate our point with a hypothetical situation. We cannot not pretend to follow his muscle-bound brain into the Kierkegaardian complexities of "24," of course, so our illustration will necessarily be more homely and simple. If, for example, we were to tie Antonin Scalia to a chair and smack him in the face or stick needles under his fingernails, or chain him in a cold room for days on end, dousing him at whiles with cold water, or haul his corpulent bulk onto a table, sling his beefy head off the side and pour water down his throat and nose until he thrashed about in a death-panic like a bull-moose gored with a spear, where would we stand in the eyes of the law?
Obviously, this treatment would not be covered under the Eighth Amendment strictures, for as Scalia teaches us, these apply only to convicted prisoners. What then do we do with those who beat, torment and torture people who are not convicted prisoners? Why, they fall under the ordinary criminal code, of course. They are charged with assault, with aggravated battery, even attempted murder, or a number of other offenses, most of them going back hundreds of years in common law.
And it is equally against the law to direct someone or to pay them to carry out such criminal actions, or to engage in a conspiracy to see that such criminal actions are undertaken. The hitman alone is not guilty of murder; the one who hired him is complicit as well. Likewise the knee-capper, the enforcer sent by a crime boss, the guard at a Nazi death camp -- or indeed, a terrorist sent out by a "mastermind" who concocts a plot but doesn't actually do the deed. Those in command are also culpable in the eyes of the law.
Actually, it is -- dare we say it? -- a "slam-dunk case." A competent prosecutor could have the whole gang tied up with a ribbon and a bow in a matter of weeks. No need for impeachment or Harvard Law School debates; just send some uniforms over to haul in the suspects and box up the evidence, get yourself a courtroom and go to work. The war crimes, mass murder and treason cases against this same gang are admittedly a more complex affair, and would take much longer to bring about. But the important thing is to get them off the streets as soon as possible, and the straightforward assault charges, to which they've already confessed, would be the quickest, easiest way to accomplish this.
So let us thank Judge Scalia for pointing the way to this swift and efficient solution. I feel sure that one of his many acolytes now thronging our legal system will be following his lead and filing these charges very soon.
This column is republished here with the permission of the author.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.
This story was published on February 15, 2008.