60 Minutes: Still A Joke

I watched the 60 Minutes piece put on by Leslie Stahl a few minutes ago on Antonin Scalia, and let me just say, if this is the pinnacle of journalism - then bloggers will eat the rest of the mainstream media alive.

Leslie Stahl asked questions like a first year journalism student astounded that anyone could have opinions different than her own, and her understanding of the law was about a sixth grade level.

Let me just cover one installment. 

On the issue of torture, she brought up Abu Ghraib.  Um, Ms. Stahl?  Abu Ghraib wasn't on American soil. It was a military matter that was dealt with in the middle of war. The Constitution covers American citizens and those on our soil.  An Iraqi prison is not a consitutional matter.

She continues on, citing "cruel and unusual punishment."  Um, Ms. Stahl?  The phrase cruel and unusual punishment applies to verdicts passed against prisoners convicted of a crime. Torturing, whether it be citizens or foreign terrorists, has nothing to do with the phrase, cruel and unusual punishment. Unless, for example, after a conviction a prisoner is disemboweled, broken on the rack, and then quartered.

Just because you can say the words "cruel and unusual" doesn't mean it's unconsiitutional.  Seriously - is this what passes for journalism these days?   

There was no pretense of objectivity in her questioning on abortion.  Perhaps that was an effect of the editing, but she seemed shocked that Scalia could hold his views.

The best part was the way she would say "People say," or "Your reputation among the public..."  Um, one last time, Ms. Stahl?  Any incorrect reputation the public has about Antonin Scalia can be laid at the feet of a biased press who demonize conservatives who fail to toe the newsroom line.  Where does "the public" get their views of Supreme Court Justices?  Why, irresponsible "journalists" who publish attack pieces and biased interviews?

Maybe Dan Rather wasn't the problem. 

Comments

[MillionthMonkey]

"The phrase cruel and unusual punishment applies to verdicts passed against prisoners convicted of a crime. Torturing, whether it be citizens or foreign terrorists, has nothing to do with the phrase, cruel and unusual punishment."

If you just jail people indefinitely, charge them with nothing, and deny them a day in court, of course there will be no conviction. So it follows naturally that you can torture people all you want while holding them indefinitely without trial by maintaining a pretense that you're "interrogating" and not "punishing".

Right?

[Jim Durbin]

MM,

Your arguments are covered under the right to a speedy trial and a writ of habeas corpus. It has nothing to do with cruel and unusual punishment.

I don't expect you to understand this, but I do expect a veteran journalist with the reputation of a Leslie Stahl to understand it, especially in the context of non-US citizens.