As If The Rest Of The World Didn't Already Hate Us Enough

[GSPODS]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill he rejected provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and has the interrogation requirement as one provision. It cleared the House in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.

Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence while also providing a much-needed boost to country's moral standing abroad.

"Torture is a black mark against the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. "We will not stop until [the ban] becomes law."

The bill would limit CIA interrogators to the 19 techniques allowed for use by military questioners. The Army field manual in 2006 banned using methods such as waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners.

Bush said the CIA must retain use of "specialized interrogation procedures" that the military doesn't need. The military methods are designed for questioning "lawful combatants captured on the battlefield," while intelligence professionals are dealing with "hardened terrorists" who have been trained to resist the techniques in the Army manual, the president said.

"We created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al Qaeda operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland," Bush said. "If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the field manual, we could lose vital information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives."

The legislation's backers say the military's approved methods are sufficient to any need.

Those 19 interrogation techniques to which the bill would have restricted CIA personnel include the "good cop/bad cop" routine, making prisoners think they are in another country's custody and separating a prisoner from others for up to 30 days.

Among the techniques the field manual prohibits are hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, or beating, electrocuting, burning or otherwise physically hurting them.

They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.

But waterboarding is the most high-profile and controversial of the interrogation methods in question.

It involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to simulate and create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition and is condemned by nations around the world and human rights organizations as torture.

Some argue it must be banned because, if torture, it is illegal under international and U.S. law. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 includes a provision barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners, and many believe that covers waterboarding.

Others say that, even if legal, there are practical arguments against waterboarding: that its use would undermine the U.S. when arguing overseas for human rights and on other moral issues and would place Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured.

"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."

He noted that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear."

The U.S. military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The CIA also prohibited the practice in 2006, and says it has not been used since three prisoners encountered it in 2003.

But while some Bush administration officials have questioned the current legality of waterboarding, the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture.

The White House says waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA. Its use would have to be approved, on a case-by-case basis, by the president after consultation with the attorney general and the intelligence community. Among the acceptable situations for approving it could be belief of imminent attack, according to the White House.

"Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said.

The CIA, from the friendly confines of their offices, needs to use techniques not legal for use by military personnel in the field of combat? Which situation presents a "clear and present danger?" I could go on endlessly on this issue but I'll leave my opinion as being this is one veto Congress needs to override. Bush wants to have separate rules for his personal "war on terror." If he had actually served in a combat situation, our fearless leader would have a different opinion.

[Cappster]

Torture a terrorist until he speaks. They aren't going to speak just because we tell them to speak. There has to be consequences for their actions.

[welch]

Ask the people who know something:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, suggested that those who support harsh methods simply lack experience and do not know what they are talking about. "If they think these methods work, they're woefully misinformed," Soyster said at a news briefing called in anticipation of the veto. "Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world."

In two separate forums earlier this week, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and Navy Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, commander of the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defended the efficacy of less-coercive, "rapport-building" interrogation tactics.

"We get so much dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner," Buzby told reporters in a conference call Thursday.

...from Saturday, 8 March, Washngton Post

[crazyhorse1]

Torture a terrorist until he speaks. They aren't going to speak just because we tell them to speak. There has to be consequences for their actions.

It is traditional in this country to let the rule of law provide consequences for bad actions. Just thought I'd remind you of that in case you decide to start thinking like an American.

By the way, just so you know, Bush has to veto the bill-- it identifies water boarding as torture, which is a war crime. If our Congress passes legislation recognizing water boarding as a war crime, which it is. Bush is a war criminal, and so are others: Rummy, CIA operatives, etc.

Bush's veto of the bill has nothing to do with its usefulness-- everything to do with staying out of jail and avoiding personal and political humiliation.

[KazooSkinsFan]

It is traditional in this country to let the rule of law provide consequences for bad actions

- Does the rule of law allow you to let a President off the hook for perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power because he's in your party?

- Does the rule of law allow you to pass "Campaign finance reform" that regulates political speech going into elections in violation of the 1st Amendment?

- Does the rule of law allow you to ignore little things like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment?

- Does the rule of law allow the government to confiscate private land for private use in violation of the 5th Amendment?

- Does the rule of law allow us to create endless welfare and other programs for which the government has no Constitutional authority to provide in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments?

- Does the rule of law include fabricating laws you want, like Roe v. Wade?

- Does the rule of law include altering Treaties like the Geneva Conventions to apply to people who clearly don't qualify in the Treaty just because you want them to?

- Does the rule of law include Congress violating the President's Constitutional authority to set foreign policy because you politically disagree with him?

- Does the rule of law include extending Constitutional rights to foreign citizens outside the US who clearly are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution through judicial decree?

If you're going to keep bringing up rule of law, I'm going to keep bringing up that the Democratic party doesn't believe in it except for the laws they support. Those who believe in the rule of law, which includes few in either major political party create laws through legal processes and CHANGE laws they disagree with, they don't ignore them. The Constitution is not an ala Carte choice for the Left or the Right.

[GSPODS]

For this topic, this is the specific Constitutional Amendment which applies:

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

cruel and unusual punishment
n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook.

The U.S. Supreme Court has waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging or electrocution are cruel and unusual. For instance, hanging is certainly cruel but was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted.

[KazooSkinsFan]

For this topic, this is the specific Constitutional Amendment which applies:

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

cruel and unusual punishment
n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook.

The U.S. Supreme Court has waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging or electrocution are cruel and unusual. For instance, hanging is certainly cruel but was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Everything you cite is in the US. I already addressed this in my list.

- Does the rule of law include extending Constitutional rights to foreign citizens outside the US who clearly are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution through judicial decree?

Any other points already covered?

[GSPODS]

For this topic, this is the specific Constitutional Amendment which applies:

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

cruel and unusual punishment
n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook.

The U.S. Supreme Court has waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging or electrocution are cruel and unusual. For instance, hanging is certainly cruel but was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Everything you cite is in the US. I already addressed this in my list.

- Does the rule of law include extending Constitutional rights to foreign citizens outside the US who clearly are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution through judicial decree?

Any other points already covered?

Yes. Please connect the dots for us on how each of your points is related to the thread topic. Perhaps you are reasonably able to draw lines between everything from the right to bear arms to welfare reform to freedom of speech to abortion. And were this thread specific to the Constitution as a whole, I'd likely join in the discussion.

The thread topic, however, is specific to the issue of cruel and unusual methods of torture for the purposes of obtaining information. Handing someone a weapon and a welfare check and sending them to the abortion clinic so they can have one while protesting the legality of the procedure with their right of free speech seems to be on the topic of your post, but not on topic of this thread.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Yes. Please connect the dots for us on how each of your points is related to the thread topic. Perhaps you are reasonably able to draw lines between everything from the right to bear arms to welfare reform to freedom of speech to abortion. And were this thread specific to the Constitution as a whole, I'd likely join in the discussion.

The thread topic, however, is specific to the issue of cruel and unusual methods of torture for the purposes of obtaining information. Handing someone a weapon and a welfare check and sending them to the abortion clinic so they can have one while protesting the legality of the procedure with their right of free speech seems to be on the topic of your post, but not on topic of this thread.

I see, so when crazyhorse introduced "rule of law" you were OK with that. When I responded that neither party follows it you were not. But rather then saying that you jumped in and brought up the eighth amendment.

When I raised in response "jurisdiction" which as a lawyer (:roll: and I'm tinker bell) rather then responding to the point, you suddenly realized this whole section which YOU were participating in was OFF topic! Rule of law, the Constitution and jurisdiction have NOTHING to do with "TORTURE" which is the subject of the forum! Thanks.

BTW, what we need is a second forum on global warming, one that takes a whole different perspective by saying that the world has another reason to hate us and we should ONLY discuss that in regards to global warming. I wish someone who recognizes the opportunity to post something of content rather then spamming by missing points and hitting ones already made would think of that. But gosh, where do we find some insightful poster like that?

[GSPODS]

I see, so when crazyhorse introduced "rule of law" you were OK with that. When I responded that neither party follows it you were not. But rather then saying that you jumped in and brought up the eighth amendment.

When I raised in response "jurisdiction" which as a lawyer (:roll: and I'm tinker bell) rather then responding to the point, you suddenly realized this whole section which YOU were participating in was OFF topic! Rule of law, the Constitution and jurisdiction have NOTHING to do with "TORTURE" which is the subject of the forum! Thanks.

BTW, what we need is a second forum on global warming, one that takes a whole different perspective by saying that the world has another reason to hate us and we should ONLY discuss that in regards to global warming. I wish someone who recognizes the opportunity to post something of content rather then spamming by missing points and hitting ones already made would think of that. But gosh, where do we find some insightful poster like that?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment, a.k.a. "Torture", is not expressly defined by the Constitution. It is impossible to create a strict constructionist, concrete definition for a loosely constructed, abstract term.
However, the Constitution does specifically state that any area not addressed and defined within its own text is left to the individual states.

This is (obviously) the explanation for why states are free to choose whether or not to use Capital Punishment, which may or may not be cruel and unusual punishment. Does it depend upon the method used? Is it all cruel and unusual?

The same questions can be applied to the subject of "torture", independently of the capital punishment issue. Using the Constitution, the issue would be left to the individual states.

I have no comment whatsoever on your admission of being Tinkerbell.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I see, so when crazyhorse introduced "rule of law" you were OK with that. When I responded that neither party follows it you were not. But rather then saying that you jumped in and brought up the eighth amendment.

When I raised in response "jurisdiction" which as a lawyer (:roll: and I'm tinker bell) rather then responding to the point, you suddenly realized this whole section which YOU were participating in was OFF topic! Rule of law, the Constitution and jurisdiction have NOTHING to do with "TORTURE" which is the subject of the forum! Thanks.

BTW, what we need is a second forum on global warming, one that takes a whole different perspective by saying that the world has another reason to hate us and we should ONLY discuss that in regards to global warming. I wish someone who recognizes the opportunity to post something of content rather then spamming by missing points and hitting ones already made would think of that. But gosh, where do we find some insightful poster like that?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment, a.k.a. "Torture", is not expressly defined by the Constitution. It is impossible to create a strict constructionist, concrete definition for a loosely constructed, abstract term.
However, the Constitution does specifically state that any area not addressed and defined within its own text is left to the individual states.

This is (obviously) the explanation for why states are free to choose whether or not to use Capital Punishment, which may or may not be cruel and unusual punishment. Does it depend upon the method used? Is it all cruel and unusual?

The same questions can be applied to the subject of "torture", independently of the capital punishment issue. Using the Constitution, the issue would be left to the individual states.

I have no comment whatsoever on your admission of being Tinkerbell.

Wow, do you know what "jurisdiction" even means? Being a lawyer and all (and I'm Aunt Jamima) I'd have thought you'd have gotten that.

[GSPODS]

jurisdiction
n. the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.

Jurisdiction, as defined by the Constitution:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As far as CH1's comment regarding the "Rule Of Law" is concerned, there is no rule of law. There is only the interpretation of law. If law were "rule", there would be no abuse of the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution.

In the event it was missed, nowhere in the Constitutional Amendment, nor in the legal definition of "jurisdiction" is the President mentioned. Jurisdiction, in the legal sense, only applies to the Judicial Branch of government, and excludes the Executive and Legislative branches by omission. Exclusion by Omission brings us back to the 10th Amendment.

If you want to be Aunt Jemima today, who's to stop you?

[KazooSkinsFan]

jurisdiction
n. the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.

Jurisdiction, as defined by the Constitution:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As far as CH1's comment regarding the "Rule Of Law" is concerned, there is no rule of law. There is only the interpretation of law. If law were "rule", there would be no abuse of the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution.

In the event it was missed, nowhere in the Constitutional Amendment, nor in the legal definition of "jurisdiction" is the President mentioned. Jurisdiction, in the legal sense, only applies to the Judicial Branch of government, and excludes the Executive and Legislative branches by omission. Exclusion by Omission brings us back to the 10th Amendment.

If you want to be Aunt Jemima today, who's to stop you?

OK, thank you for that deep legal analysis. It certainly clarifies how you keep assuming the Constitution applies to foreign citizens not in the United States. It's good to have a lawyer on the site (and I'm Red Buttons) who can Google the term "jurisdiction" and recognize that it's a legal term.

So in your Google search you came up with jurisdiction as "the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases." How do you think that might be an issue regarding your attempt to provide Eighth Amendment rights to foreign citizens in foreign countries? Any ideas?

[GSPODS]

Black's Law Dictionary, not Google.
And, you brought up the Constitution when CH1 went off on a tangent about the "rule of law."

Even if one wanted to argue that the Constitution expressly grants the President the authority "to make treaties", that is the only power expressly given to the President by the Constitution, relative to foreign affairs.

The Constitution specifically states "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

The Geneva Convention is, in fact, a Treatise (treaty), as defined by having entered into an agreement with one or more foreign nations. Although this President did not initiate any of the treatises related to "rules of engagement", he is supposed to be bound by the oath of office to follow those treaties already in existence.

The Constitution specifically allows the President to enter into treaties with foreign nations but it does not specifically allow the President to break or to cancel or to revoke treaties.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Black's Law Dictionary, not Google.
And, you brought up the Constitution when CH1 went off on a tangent about the "rule of law."

I brought up the Constitution to say his beloved Democratic party doesn't follow it and they don't get to simultaneously ignore it while attacking Bush for ignoring it. You came back with the Eighth Amendment preventing water boarding when there is no discussion of water boarding in the US. I came back with jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer like you (and I'm Snow White), but how does my saying Democrats don't follow the Constitution eliminate my ability to point out that your Eighth Amendment argument is irrelevant because of jurisdiction?

Even if one wanted to argue that the Constitution expressly grants the President the authority "to make treaties", that is the only power expressly given to the President by the Constitution, relative to foreign affairs.
The Constitution specifically states "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

Um...what about head of the armed forces? Congress only has limited and specific foreign enumerated powers like regulating commerce and approving treaties. Indirectly they approve the President's major policy makers (State, Defense) and they control the purse strings. The President is head of state and the armed forces. Since the Constitution is based on enumerated powers, how do Congress's narrow explicit powers usurp the President's ability to set foreign policy or control the military out side the US (and their jurisdiction, that word befuddling you)?

Now you can attack our being there because Congress didn't declare war and you can argue that Congress can cut off the money since they control the purse strings. That would stop water boarding because we wouldn't be there, which would be in my view a very good thing but a different topic.

The Geneva Convention is, in fact, a Treatise (treaty), as defined by having entered into an agreement with one or more foreign nations. Although this President did not initiate any of the treatises related to "rules of engagement", he is supposed to be bound by the oath of office to follow those treaties already in existence.

The Constitution specifically allows the President to enter into treaties with foreign nations but it does not specifically allow the President to break or to cancel or to revoke treaties.

Agreed. Don't see the relevance though since the Geneva convention sets down specific criteria (uniforms, carry guns in open... that don't apply).

So the question stands, how does the Eighth Amendment protect Iraqi terrorists from water boarding?

[GSPODS]

Black's Law Dictionary, not Google.
And, you brought up the Constitution when CH1 went off on a tangent about the "rule of law."

I brought up the Constitution to say his beloved Democratic party doesn't follow it and they don't get to simultaneously ignore it while attacking Bush for ignoring it. You came back with the Eighth Amendment preventing water boarding when there is no discussion of water boarding in the US. I came back with jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer like you (and I'm Snow White), but how does my saying Democrats don't follow the Constitution eliminate my ability to point out that your Eighth Amendment argument is irrelevant because of jurisdiction?

Even if one wanted to argue that the Constitution expressly grants the President the authority "to make treaties", that is the only power expressly given to the President by the Constitution, relative to foreign affairs.
The Constitution specifically states "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

Um...what about head of the armed forces? Congress only has limited and specific foreign enumerated powers like regulating commerce and approving treaties. Indirectly they approve the President's major policy makers (State, Defense) and they control the purse strings.

The Geneva Convention is, in fact, a Treatise (treaty), as defined by having entered into an agreement with one or more foreign nations. Although this President did not initiate any of the treatises related to "rules of engagement", he is supposed to be bound by the oath of office to follow those treaties already in existence.

The Constitution specifically allows the President to enter into treaties with foreign nations but it does not specifically allow the President to break or to cancel or to revoke treaties.

Agreed. Don't see the relevance though since the Geneva convention sets down specific criteria (uniforms, carry guns in open... that don't apply).

So the question stands, how does the Eighth Amendment protect Iraqi terrorists from water boarding?

The 8th Amendment, and for that matter the Constitution as a whole, does not expressly allow torture. It, in fact, expressly prohibits torture. The key being the Constitution does not apply to foreign soil.

I did not see how being the head of the Army, Navy, and the Militia of the several States was relative to this conversation because the article expressly states the President is authorizing powers to the CIA which are expressly prohibited by the military.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The 8th Amendment, and for that matter the Constitution as a whole, does not expressly allow torture. It, in fact, expressly prohibits torture.

Agreed, yet in the discussion of water boarding you raised that the eighth amendment prohibited it.

The key being the Constitution does not apply to foreign soil.

Right, this is what I came back to you with. We are discussing Iraqi terrorists. They are not in the US. Since that is outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution the Eighth Amendment is irrelevant. So as a lawyer (and I'm Shirley Temple) what in your point with this? You repeated your point and my response. And...

I did not see how being the head of the Army, Navy, and the Militia of the several States was relative to this conversation because the article expressly states the President is authorizing powers to the CIA which are expressly prohibited by the military.

Then why did you argue the Eighth Amendment?

For this topic, this is the specific Constitutional Amendment which applies:

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

You said it "applies" directly in response to the discussion. Now you say you didn't think it was "reletive to this discussion."?

[GSPODS]

The 8th Amendment, and for that matter the Constitution as a whole, does not expressly allow torture. It, in fact, expressly prohibits torture.

Agreed, yet in the discussion of water boarding you raised that the eighth amendment prohibited it.

The key being the Constitution does not apply to foreign soil.

Right, this is what I came back to you with. We are discussing Iraqi terrorists. They are not in the US. Since that is outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution the Eighth Amendment is irrelevant. So as a lawyer (and I'm Shirley Temple) what in your point with this? You repeated your point and my response. And...

I did not see how being the head of the Army, Navy, and the Militia of the several States was relative to this conversation because the article expressly states the President is authorizing powers to the CIA which are expressly prohibited by the military.

Then why did you argue the Eighth Amendment?

The reason for posting the 8th Amendment was not an argument for or against the issue. It was to point out that although our Constitution expressly prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, it does not define specifically what is cruel and unusual. Waterboarding is a Medieval torture method, as is "the rack", the cat of nine tails, etc., et. al., and would, by American standards, be considered cruel and unusual.

Our President would lead us to believe that a torture method we clearly would prohibit as cruel and unusual in domestic affairs is acceptable practice for foreign affairs. I believe this is referred to as "Fuzzy Logic."

[KazooSkinsFan]

The reason for posting the 8th Amendment was not an argument for or against the issue. It was to point out that although our Constitution expressly prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, it does not define specifically what is cruel and unusual. Waterboarding is a Medieval torture method, as is "the rack", the cat of nine tails, etc., et. al., and would, by American standards, be considered cruel and unusual.

Our President would lead us to believe that a torture method we clearly would prohibit as cruel and unusual in domestic affairs is acceptable practice for foreign affairs. I believe this is referred to as "Fuzzy Logic."

Your post is "fuzzy logic." And by fuzzy logic I mean crapola. If you're a lawyer, I'm Mahatma Ghandi.

[Countertrey]

It was to point out that although our Constitution expressly prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, it does not define specifically what is cruel and unusual.

Just throwing in some fuel...

The discussion of waterboarding is pertinent to it's use as an interrogation technique, not as a punishment... therefore, it would appear to me that the Constitution is silent on this topic...

[Bob 0119]

It was to point out that although our Constitution expressly prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, it does not define specifically what is cruel and unusual.

Just throwing in some fuel...

The discussion of waterboarding is pertinent to it's use as an interrogation technique, not as a punishment... therefore, it would appear to me that the Constitution is silent on this topic...

I gotta agree with that point. Perhaps this is a Miranda issue?

[welch]

I doubt that the US Constitution says anything about how to treat prisoners of war.

The issue, clearly described in the original article, is that this Bush administration wants to allow the CIA to use methods of interrogation that are denied to the US military. As I read the Taguba Report on Abu Graib, it seems likely that civilian members of the Defense Department concocted the sick procedures used there. Certainly:

- there is Army doctrine on how to treat prisoners

- the US signed treaties that forbid torture. Treaties confirmed by Congress have the force of US law, I believe.

- Army doctrine forbids torture as unethical, as producing bad information ("I'll say anything you want me to say"), and as encouraging other people to torture our troops

- MPs guard prisoners; military intelligence (MI) questions them. Doctrine says that guards are not supposed to soften up prisoners for MI.

This is not a petty matter of party one-up-man-ship. It became a Constitutional issue years ago when the administration declared that it had the authority to create new courts with new procedures and to declare who might be subject to those courts.

Historical precedent? Parliament became impatient with American colonial courts, which had a habit of freeing people accused of smuggling. Among the innovations Parliament introduced around 1773 and 1774 was a rule that anyone accused of smuggling would be taken to Halifax, or even to Britain, and tried before an Admiralty Court -- not before a local court having a jury of the accused's peers. I think the charge made it into the grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

What about the Bush administration? Their lawyers argued that the President had the right to define crimes, to create courts to try people for those crimes, and to set the rules that those courts would follow.

Interestingly, the military tribunals have stuck to Anglo-American traditions of due-process. The Army and Navy lawyers seem to have more regard for the Constitution and tradition than does the Justice Department.

Back to the original news article. This law does not make the US look good...

[Countertrey]

- there is Army doctrine on how to treat prisoners

- Army doctrine forbids torture as unethical, as producing bad information ("I'll say anything you want me to say"), and as encouraging other people to torture our troops

- MPs guard prisoners; military intelligence (MI) questions them. Doctrine says that guards are not supposed to soften up prisoners for MI.

Military doctrine governs Military behavior... not that of civilian intelligence agencies.

I do not see that the behavior of the military, beyond criminal acts addressed and punished, is in question.

[welch]

I think the question was whether the CIA should be governed by the Army's rules. The administration says, "no", and the Taguba report on Abu Graib suggests that some DoD civilians attempted to introduce CIA methods into the Army's handling of prisoners. At least as I read the report.

[Countertrey]

I think the question was whether the CIA should be governed by the Army's rules. The administration says, "no", and the Taguba report on Abu Graib suggests that some DoD civilians attempted to introduce CIA methods into the Army's handling of prisoners. At least as I read the report.

Look, it matters not to me whether the rules for interrogation the CIA is bound to are very stringent, nor very minimal... but I don't want our enemies to have any idea about them.

Congress may, or may not hold them to the standards used by the military... but whichever they do, do it in the dark.