Posted on 12/13/2014 12:26:39 PM PST by shove_it
Most people would consider torture to be cruel… maybe even unusual.
Isn't that what makes it torture?
“Torture” works every time it’s tried. The commie libs haven’t a clue. That’s why it has been used since the beginning of time.
Is it torture if after having experienced it, you can stand up, cough and blow you nose, then walk away normally? I'd say it's intense hazing.
Punishment is not interrogation.
If we have justifiable murder. Then there also must be justifiable torture.
The Constitution may be silent on torture, but the liberals have tortured the Constitution.
Exactly!
Are we to assume everyone on the planet, even enemy nationals, are protected by the constitution?
That certainly makes war a tough row to hoe.
Secondly, I am skeptical with regard to calling water boarding, diapers, etc. torture. See the Spanish Inquisition for a definition of real torture.
When the Constitution was being authored, traitors were being DRAWN and QUARTERED. They set examples very well.
Tarred and Feathered set a very convincing example, as well.
By that logic there was no need for a 4th Amendment.
Dingdingdingdingdingding!
Someone give this DJ a gold record!
If the authors of the Bill of Rights had wanted to prevent torture, they could have very easily included an explicit prohibition. Torture is a completely separate entity/concept from punishment, and usually arrives at a different time during the processing/detention of a captive.
In the context of this debate, “It’s immoral” or “it makes me feel bad” is not a valid legal argument.
The key is cruel AND unusual. Even if it is cruel, if it is not unusual, it can’t, by definition, be “cruel and unusual”.
Either change the constitution to be “cruel or unusual”, or shut up about it.
It's 500 years between Edward Longshanks and George III.
As with most things, when they get around to doing it to us, we’ll call it what it is. Of course, by then it will be too late.
You're equivocating. If the constitution did read cruel or unusual would you then argue that torture is constitutional if it's both cruel and unusual?
Not really: simply kill the enemy.
Are we to assume everyone on the planet, even enemy nationals, are protected by the constitution?
The Constitution sets limits on what the government does, otherwise it is useless.
Moreover, the government can [and does] claim that certain actions may result in a loss of citizenship; if that is the case, and if the Constitution only protects citizens, then your protection by the constitution as a citizen is entirely at the whim of the government.
punishment (noun)You sure about that?
1. the act of punishing.
2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
4. severe handling or treatment.
torture (noun)
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Oh, so you're claiming that torture is usual
?
The we do it all the time
sort of thing?
If that were the case, why would the politicians say that we don't torture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.