OPINION:Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional

C

Canceled2

Banned
May 14, 2011
Waterboarding is Not Unconstitutional
By William A. Levinson

The Constitution does not forbid the infliction of physical pain on another person to force his compliance with certain courses of action. The Bill of Rights says specifically that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and it also bans cruel and unusual punishments. It is therefore unconstitutional to use torture to (1) force somebody to confess to a crime, or (2) as a punishment.

Let's review the context in which these statements were written. It was standard practice in many European countries to torture suspects to force them to confess to crimes and also to name accomplices. Tortures such as breaking on the wheel and burning alive were meanwhile used as punishments in most parts of Europe. The Founding Fathers decided quite rightly that neither practice had any place in their new Republic.

continued at hyperlink above.
 
Well, you could have just made clear the fact this 'opinion' was made by someone who was 'just guessing' and then we'd all be more clear, no?
 
No one is "just guessing" anything. The author is offering an opinion-of course some people are smart enough to know the difference...well...yeah some are.
 
Again, i apologise for quoting a bit of your article that you obviously...er...forgot to include.
 
charver said:
Again, i apologise for quoting a bit of your article that you obviously...er...forgot to include.
Click to expand...

The constitution was written so that a regular joe should be able to understand it, not just attorneys. It was one of the more charming things about it. Of course that didn't stop attorneys from making money complicating things and stuffs.
 
Damocles said:
The constitution was written so that a regular joe should be able to understand it, not just attorneys. It was one of the more charming things about it. Of course that didn't stop attorneys from making money complicating things and stuffs.
Click to expand...

And if the bit i quoted had been included i wouldn't have posted it and none of this unpleasantness would have occurred.

I'm just a chap after full disclosure. (that's probably in your Constitution somewhere, isn't it? I wouldn't really know, being one of these foreign types who agrees with much of what is in your constitution, although, as it now includes the right to waterboarding, i may have to rethink my position).
 
charver must be really bored today

Disclaimer: the author of this post is not an attorney and nothing here should be construed as legal advice.

:palm:
 
charver said:
And if the bit i quoted had been included i wouldn't have posted it and none of this unpleasantness would have occurred.

I'm just a chap after full disclosure. (that's probably in your Constitution somewhere, isn't it? I wouldn't really know, being one of these foreign types who agrees with much of what is in your constitution, although, as it now includes the right to waterboarding, i may have to rethink my position).
Click to expand...

I don't remember the right to full disclosure, but it should be there.
 
Damocles said:
The constitution was written so that a regular joe should be able to understand it, not just attorneys. It was one of the more charming things about it. Of course that didn't stop attorneys from making money complicating things and stuffs.
Click to expand...


That said, Levinson has a valid point, it's not what the Constitution says. It's unconstitutional to waterboard someone as punishment or to compel them to confess to a crime, but it says nothing about deriving intelligence information. That would be a completely different ball of wax, as it were.
 
Dixie said:
That said, Levinson has a valid point, it's not what the Constitution says. It's unconstitutional to waterboard someone as punishment or to compel them to confess to a crime, but it says nothing about deriving intelligence information. That would be a completely different ball of wax, as it were.
Click to expand...

If that were the truth, cops wouldn't have to ensure your rights were covered before questioning. They'd just be "gathering intelligence"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top