That's not what the Bill of Rights says; here's what it says:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.Now, considering that, it must be of course the government to which the Bill of Rights applies because if it applies to citizens or residents then it is not limiting the government. — If this is not the case, then what other conditions could we add to it? Maybe the Bill of Rights doesn't protect citizens who are outside the US… maybe it's some other conditions that can be added.
The terrorists aren't members off this class. Nor are they members of any class covered by the Geneva Convention.
I never said they were.
As "illegal combatants", they are subject to being shot on sight, if the capturing force prefers. From there, it's not a long stretch to allowing "extreme interrogation tehniques".
I have no problem w/ shooting them on sight.
But there is a huge difference between summary execution and torture.
Most of the Guantanamo Bay crap is directly due to the imaginary category that was created as a middle ground between lawful- and unlawful-combatant.
Personally, I would not consider waterboarding "torture". The subject is not injured or maimed. They walk out of the room in the same condition they walked in.
*shrug* — I am rather undecided on the issue.
The problem I see is, like this thread shows, the willingness to read the absolute words of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and then rationalize transgression thereof. — The point is that the Constitution has to matter especially when it makes government's job harder, otherwise it is useless: applying only when convenient… is that what our Rule of Law amounts to?
And, since we subject 28,000 of our own troops and agents to the practice to familiarize them with it, I don't think we're in the business of torturing our own troops.
I'm not sure saying our government does it to our own
is a good justification. After all, the NSA routinely ignores the 4th Amendment, does that mean that the police shouldn't be bound by the 4th amendment because the NSA does it?
Cold, dark rooms. Loud music. Sleep deprivation. Diet manipulation. Not torture.
And neither is waterboarding -- because there is no physical injury or maiming. Nor any risk of death...only a perception of one.
Words mean things. And my definition of "torture" requires physical injury or deprivation.