I don't know. Not a scholar. I'll defer to Scalia.
Why would you defer to one Justice of the Supreme Court? What is the position of the rest of the court? What has been the position of the courts since day one?
This tendency of presuming the most arcane about the U.S. Constitution precepts needs to go. Very little about what was written in the U.S. Constitution is mysterious when you look at in context.
The Western world during the onset of U.S. republicanism was a highly reactionary time period where the last vestiges of the medieval period (those that persisted past the Renaissance) were being swept away due to their association with aristocratic and monarchical privilege -- often in the fires of revolution. "Cruel and unusual punishment" means any of the classic torture devices and methods associated with the Old Order, including ripping off finger nails, inquisitorial style psychological harassment and manipulation techniques, and water boarding. Anything that runs contrary to the "enlightenment" in the Age of Enlightenment.
Only thing mentioned in the report that might not pass as "cruel and unusual punishment" in the reckoning of the Founding Fathers would be solitary confinement, since forcing prisoners to live away from society like monks silently contemplating their sins was considered an ideal prison reform by the educated men of that time period.
Yes
No
Other
5th Amendment bars self-incrimination and requires due process prior to punishment (imprisonment).
8th Amendment bars unusual punishment. 14th Amendment also guarantees due process.
US signed the 1987 UN Convention Against Torture. The definition of torture stipulated by the US in the treaty reservations is:
the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en
This is basically the same language as the US Code.
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute
There's nothing in the Constitution that I'm aware of that prohibits torture but that's the wrong question. The right question is "Do the American people want to accept that torture, a morally reprehensible and ineffective tactic, is being done in their name?"
There's nothing in the Constitution that I'm aware of that prohibits torture but that's the wrong question. The right question is "Do the American people want to accept that torture, a morally reprehensible and ineffective tactic, is being done in their name?"
That statement presumes that torture isn't "cruel and unusual", but rather common/normal and reasonable.
Some get around this by simply refusing to categorize torture as such, hence we get spin like "enhanced interrogation".
There's nothing in the Constitution that I'm aware of that prohibits torture but that's the wrong question. The right question is "Do the American people want to accept that torture, a morally reprehensible and ineffective tactic, is being done in their name?"
Just playing devil's advocate, but there are plenty of Americans who don't find torture morally reprehensible and couldn't care less if it's ineffective, they just want revenge on people who they think have done the nation or its people harm. What do you say to those people?
I don't have a problem with putting a bullet in the bad guy's head. But making someone suffer for extended periods is sick.
I'm sure many of the people who advocate for torture are really looking for revenge. Not so sure they'd be so quick to go for if if they were the ones inflicting the pain.
see below.
That's what prompted my question:
Scalia: Nothing In The Constitution Prohibits Torture
What about the 8th Amendment - cruel and unusual punishment?
Why would you defer to one Justice of the Supreme Court? What is the position of the rest of the court? What has been the position of the courts since day one?
Not according to many people, and again, I'm just throwing that out there, I'm not saying I agree with it.
I've talked to a lot of people who think that Osama bin Laden got off way too easily, they'd have stood in line for the opportunity to take their shot at him personally. I think you underestimate the rage that many people have toward terrorists that harm Americans.
The Constitution does apply to just American citizens.
It also applies to non citizens living within the US.
It also applies to non citizens living within the US.
Seems like the wrong question since the question addressed by the Justice Department on this was whether the EIT were legally torture. Based on the lawyers, everyone moved ahead on the basis that what they were doing was legal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?