The Torture Apologists are doomed..Amendment 8 U.S. Constitution

[Stuart G]

This says they are doomed... Amendment 8..U.S.Constitution..

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Also...this one seals it..............

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.

[jmg257]

1. Does the US constitution apply to non-US citizens? n/t

[Stuart G]

2. The arguement could go this way..it isn't against who, it is

who devised and carried out the torture..

Charges are against the torturers, not those who are tortured..

[jmg257]

4. But aren't 'your' charges that the perpetrators commited 'unusual punishment' under the 8th amend.?

[Mr. Blonde]

5. But the protection is for those who are tortured

So it would still be up in the air on where torture would be allowed. If the prisoners being held at Bagram get Habeas rights, you are probably right. If they don't, it will be some weird technicality where torture at Guantanamo is not OK and those can be punished, but torture at Bagram is OK and those guys are not punished.

The guys who did the torture would be doing what they were told was legal on people who have no constitutional recourse.

[Toucano]

10. It says nothing about protection.

It says "infliction".

While it generally has been interpreted as a protection against these things for the population, it could also be viewed as a prohibition against these things that binds the state.

In that view, U.S. citizens are both protected from torture and prohibited from practicing torture. It is quite interesting.

Also, U.S. citizens are bound by U.S. law even when outside the jurisdiction of the United States, so the nationality of the victim and the location of the torture would be irrelevant.

[Winterblues]

9. Does it say it only applies to citizens?

If not then it applies to anyone in this country. That is one reason the Bush* Cabal would not allow prisoners on American soil, however any US Military base is considered American soil and American Law applies there. Why they chose Rendition I guess......I can't imagine what might have gone on in some of those foreign hell holes...

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Yes. both by treaty, which becomes US Law

and US law

[TahitiNut]

20. Common misperception. The Constitution applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

In no way, shape, or form does it define human rights and only makes reference to certain such rights to emphasize the limits on the authorized power of that government. Thus, neither the presence nor absence of any reference to persons or citizens is to be taken as any limitation on their rights and liberties. All rights are human rights, irrespective of citizenship.

[rbixby]

21. I believe its clear in the text

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." That means that cruel and unusual punishments may not be inflicted by the united states, that would apply to the people meting out the punishments, not the people being punished.

[Enthusiast]

3. I can see Scalia

using twisted logic to get around that.

[Believing Is Art]

6. One caveat not mentioned yet

Torture wasn't used for punishment (so they say). The purpose was to get information. I doubt that difference was considered by the authors of the 8th amendment, but one could argue the letter and not the spirit of the law.

[Stuart G]

8. While torture wasn't used as punishment..it it killed and it will be hard

to defend in a court of law. Killing is ultimate punishment. The question for the judges is "Did what they did in the end
result in cruel and unusual punishment

The courts will rule it did if given a chance. (I believe)

[Believing Is Art]

11. But can it be proven that death was intentional?

If not, no dice. Accident pursuant to the investigation of terrorist activities. Not purposeful and not punishment. By the letter of the law, it did not violate the 8th amendment.

Torture is illegal under US and international law. There's no need to argue using cruel and unusual punishment.

[Bluerthanblue]

12. Did those inflicting torture know that what they were doing could lead to death?

of course they did- "intent" is implicit.

Knowing that you are putting someone into a position that could kill them, and doing so anyway- IS intent.

As for it being illegal under international law- I agree, but for those who lift the Constitution up when it profits them, and who ignore it when it doesn't- THIS amendment is a slap in the face. I think it suits the situation very well, and am going to use it when discussing this with a few right-wing acquaintances.

:hi:

[Zodiak]

15. You may even be right about "cruel and unusual"

Depends on whether constitutional law applies to "persons" or "citizens" only. I think it applies to "persons", but that is only what I think, not what I know.

[Believing Is Art]

16. I can't disagree with using it in a lay argument

I definitely think it falls into the spirit.

But I don't think knowing it could lead to death is the same as intent. Putting child molesters in an overcrowded prison could lead to their death - I hear they aren't very well liked - but that isn't considered cruel and unusual. There's also still the matter of interrogation vs. punishment. I don't see an 8th amendment argument holding water in court as useful as it may be when discussing torture with RW nuts.

[Zodiak]

14. But the fact that people died from such treatment...

...is prima fascia (sp?) evidence that such treatment is indeed torture.

I think that fact is very important, and it seems to not be part of the dialogue.

This was not posted to be in disagreement with you...you have a good point. I'm just adding mine.

[bullimiami]

7. its not the constitution, the laws or the treaties that are the problem.

they are clear and bushco has violated many of them.

its selective non-prosecution that is our countries problem. politics interfering with justice.
this allows many powerful criminals to walk free and remain rich and powerful.

[varkam]

13. Except that it wasn't being used as punishment.

Given that punishment is something that the state inflicts as a result of being found guilty of a crime, this was not punishment. I'm not saying that there aren't constitutional issues here (here are), but I don't think the 8A is among them.

[Believing Is Art]

18. I think you're right

Spirit, not letter, of the law. Since it was used as an "interrogation technique" and not punishment, I don't think the 8th amendment works here.

[struggle4progress]

19. "Laws! We know what they are and what they are worth! Spider webs for the rich and powerful,

steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government!" -- Proudhon

I consider the law to be a good thing, so far as it goes, but it does not operate in any automatic way: it is a human institution, often governed by current politics and particular interests -- and that means that blame frequently flows down from the top down and finally rests, not on the great criminals, but on the small ones. The great criminals are well-connected and have resources at their disposal: they bring to their defense phalanxes of lawyers and publicists; and at every turn, they portray themselves as victims, no matter how many others have suffered from their crimes

Our first struggle is a continuing struggle for accurate historical memory: the facts have been submerged in lies, and the effort to obscure the realities will continue, because the facts are inconvenient to a certain group of power-brokers. Unless a broad sector of the public reaches an informed understanding of the behavior of the previous regime, nothing of permanent value can be accomplished

[ItNerd4life]

22. The constitution is for US citizens,

it's not applicable in this case.