The concept of torture and punishment are orthogonal

They are far from 90o separated definitionally or legally.
punishment:

1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

torture:

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Scalia acknowledged that torture when coupled with detention or other punishment is part of that punishment when he said, "Because smacking someone in the face would violate the Eighth Amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about. Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society?" It is obvious then that he is speaking of torture for purposes of extracting information. As previously stated, torture in this context is punishment for failure to give that information. He was/is seeking semantic refuge to cover his ideological position and Stahl tried call him on it.

What's most distressing about this is that Scalia's argument is entirely fatuous. His intent was not to assert that the 8th Amendment is not what makes torture illegal; his intention was clearly to assert that the 8th Amendment does not prohibit such actions at the behest of the state, even though, as noted, it has been explicitly interpreted to say as much with respect to government treatment of a prisoner. Scalia has made a similar assertion before (click my name) in a blatant attempt to turn the so-called "ticking time-bomb scenario" into the de facto standard by which legality is to be judged. That he seems to feel our world really works like the plot to a lame TV show is rather telling.

C and Boyd: You're right that he never states explicitly in the interview that he agrees with torture, but his previous statements and the manner in which he makes this comment show that he's not simply making a semantic point and subtly saying that torture is illegal in the way that hitting someone in the face is illegal; rather, he's attempting to defend the act's legality through purely semantic reasoning. I think Stahl's "obtuseness" is actually brought on by knowing that Scalia has persistently tried to redefine the Constitution so that the Bush administration is no longer in clear violation of it.

And, in fact, torture in the context that he cites would be punishment, exactly as duckspeaker notes. It would probably also violate the 5th Amendment right of a person not to incriminate oneself, particularly since the kangaroo justice system the military has set up seems to be willing to accept torture-induced statements as a matter of course.

So, the real question is, if I were a member of the US government, and they gave me the order, could I legally beat the hell out of you on the streets, without you having any legal recourse after the fact?

There are probably no circumstances under which you wouldn't have legal recourse. Even the "enemy combatants" wound up getting a day in court, eventually.

But it's not entirely inconceivable that there are circumstances under which an agent of the government could be ordered to assault a citizen and the agent himself would be held immune from prosecution.

It is, however, still a crime, and I should still go to prison for it. If I am part of an organization that approved of, planned, and ordered the beating, then the entire organization is guilty of that crime and can be placed in prison for it.

Oh, and if you happen to die from the beating, I and those who ordered it could even be executed.

So, the real question is, if I were a member of the US government, and they gave me the order, could I legally beat the hell out of you on the streets, without you having any legal recourse after the fact?

Let's spell it out here: we have no idea from his statements whether he feels that torturing someone to extract information is legal or not. He is merely (and plainly) saying that it's not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because it's not punishment.

I'm left to wonder whether Stahl's obtuseness is a journalistic guise to get Mr. Scalia to further expound on his position, or if she's just plain obtuse. Both ideas have their merits.

We have a Supreme Court justice that doesn't feel that torture is cruel/unusual punishment.

Awesome.