All the amendment does is reiterate the Army Field Manual's rule on treatment of detainees/prisoners. It sets standards; it doesn't "coddle" the terrorists anymore than it does any other POWs/detainees that we've captured in the past.
It also specifically references the 5th 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
OK, never mind. After reading the editorial, I disavow any and all knowledge of the previous comment made under my screen name. :-)
(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
] (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
The problem is the word "degrading" and even "torture" does not mean the same things to all people. Consider Dick the Turban's use of the words in reference to Gitmo. Sorry....but there is NO torture going on in Gitmo...nothing close to it, yet he was out there comparing our soldiers to Nazis and Stalin's goons.
The other problem is this: It's not that we want to use torture...there are safeguards right NOW to avoid that. BUT, why should we tell our ENEMIES that we WON'T use it???? The fear of the unknown is what will make these people talk. IF they KNOW that nothing will physically happen to them, they won't talk!!!
Well, which is it? Does it "reiterate", or does it "set"? You can't have it both ways.
If it simply "reiterates", then it was just a thinly veiled swipe at the Whitehouse and its handling of the war. If it "sets", then there is legitimate concern about the "setting" of new levels of rights for detainees / POWs.
If legislators think it will be a good idea to gradually grant our enemies the full list of American constitutional rights in a time of war, we may as well start picking our new Muslim names now. All an enemy will have to do to defeat the US is hire lawyers for all their fighters and clog up the courts for a few decades.
In war, you don't protect your enemy, you defeat them.
We don't need it.
We didn't have it in WW1 or WW2 and we certainly don't need it now.
These people are the modern day equivalent of pirates or more virulent and vicious. Pirates were after boty, these villains want to murder people - any people - at any cost, including their won deaths.
I'd gladly break every bone in their bodies if it would prevent another massacre of innocent citizens or save American soldiers.
Our adoption of such a policy in no way will ameliorate their behavior, and as far as wolrd opinion is concerned, it matters not a whit.
Once again, that demon McCain proved what a vacuous media whore he has become. The man is a total disgrace and a loose cannon.