Reply #130: I have read the UCMJ in its entirety and nowhere does it

[sabrina 1]

allow for inhumane treatment of a suspect or even of someone who has been convicted. Naturally it would not, since the oath taken by our military personnel, involves defending and protecting the Constitution. Our domestic laws, our constitution forbid torture. And all the International treaties we signed, all forbid torture and/or the 'inhumane treatment' of human beings, soldiers and civilians alike. I know Bush tried to make distinctions among human beings when it came to torture, HIS claim was that if they weren't wearing a uniform they weren't 'human'. Are you now suggesting that under a Demcoratic administration, U.S. soldiers do not fall under the 'human' category mentioned in all of our laws?

NO HUMAN BEING is to be treated inhumanely. There are no categories of human beings in any laws that forbid cruel and unusual punishment. NONE. Is that so hard to grasp? If this was happening under Bush, this board would be on fire with threads denouncing it. I am sick to see how desensitized even democrats have become to the inhumane treatment of other human beings. I am a democrat because I thought we had higher standards.

He is in custody, he should be treated humanely. Including after conviction if that should happen. And any country that does not abide by those standards is NOT a country I want to be a part of, nor would I ever even try to defend it, no matter which party is in power.