Right On The Right

I'm guessing much of your objection is to "that's my view and it happens to be correct," but perhaps Scalia put too fine a point on his analysis. The unreliability of Wikipedia notwithstanding (thanks for the alternate definition from the English Dictionary), the meaning appears to be an either/or proposition: torture is a process to elicit divulgence of information OR a retaliation for a criminal act.

Scalia doubtlessly applies this to the status of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, recognizing what most detractors overlook: the detainees are not American citizens entitled to our Bill of Rights protection, nor are they soldiers from a recognizable foreign state covered by the Geneva Convention. They have not yet been convicted of anything, only suspected, therefore any "torture" is not a punishment---cruel, unusual, or benevolent---for past crimes. These are all arguable points.

I personally hold that since waterboarding is part of resistance training for our own military, if such practices produce information that proves to save American lives, Let the Waterboarding Begin.

I've transcribed the interview from 12:59 (emphasis mine):

If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person. If, if you listen to the expression, cruel and unusual punishment, doesn't that apply?

No, no, to the contrary. You think, you think that you would. Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
...
Anyway that's my view and it happens to be correct.

But the quickest of searches yields the following from wikipedia (emphasis mine):

One generally-accepted definition of torture is given by the United Nations Convention Against Torture [adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984 and, following ratification by the 20th state party, it came into force on 26 June 1987], which defines it as

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."[2]

And perhaps sadder still (given Scalia is supposed to be a "brilliant legal mind") from the English dictionary (emphasis mine):

the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

or

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

So according to Scalia nobody has every referred to torture as punishment, but I can find references in under five minutes. I can only conclude (since I can't ask him any further questions and the interviewer doesn't challenge Scalia) that he is either incompetent or lying. But then again what do you expect from a person who tries to end debate by saying, "Anyway that's my view and it happens to be correct." (see end of transcript above)?

Scalia definetly my favorite Justice.

The producers undoubtedly edited some of the footage to minimize Lesley Stahl's foolishness; she asks the dumbest questions--witness the AlGore suck-up a few weeks ago. From the Scalia piece, it's obvious she never stayed awake in any law class.

The most surprising segment was the 60 seconds with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, where she revealed that she and Nino are the best of friends, though they often disagree vehemently with each other.

The other big surprise was the number of Catholics on the court. Who knew?