EVERYONE has constitutional rights.

[K-W]

I just wanted to point that out because it seems that every single person in the republican party slept through social studies class in elementary school.

Just hearing on The Al Franken Show about the torture evidence change. And how apparently detainees at Gitmo dont have constitutional rights. As if the constitution was a suggestion.

Strict constructionists my a**

[rkc3]

1. Even if they don't have constitutional rights, they should at least be

treated with dignity.

The hypocrisy of all of this is that our fearless leader took us to war against these infidels on a higher moral ground. Despite our close relationship with morality, we have managed to torture our prisoners, shoot unarmed and wounded combatants, and napalm parts of cities.

It's all been justified by calling Muslims animals and reminding americans these "people" would just as soon cut off your head than talk with you.

It's un-fucking-believable how far we have sunk over the past few years.

[K-W]

4. More accurately everyone has human rights.

But everyone in Gitmo has constitutional rights. They got them at the very latest when they were brought to Gitmo. It is a US base run by the US government, it damn sure better follow the constitution.

[sweetheart]

40. human rights are enough

The UN Universal Delcaration of Human Rights is far more thorough
than the constitutional rights you mention. There is no need to
bring up the constitution. Why are we denying the human rights of
anyone, our own citizens denied universal sufferage by racist
gerrymandering and a litany of unpleasant behaviours by these bush
gangsters.

[H2O Man]

41. Very well said!

Perhaps there is a reason this administration is attacking the UN at every opportunity.

[gWbush is Mabus]

5. great post

i personally think some of those decapitations are black-ops/psy-ops
to help justify this immorality

[DrWeird]

2. That's why they're in Cuba.

So they can skirt the Constitution. Funny how the US always criticizes Cuba for torturing its prisoners while we're the ones doing it.

[bones_7672]

3. Uh, I respectfully disagree

those at Gitmo are foreign insurgents held at a facility in a foreign land. The US Constitution holds for those in the US. I don't think we can say that they automatically get those rights.

Of course, they should not be tortured.

[K-W]

7. You are wrong.

Are you really arguing that beecause they are born in other countries they arent equal according to our constitution? I think they are.

And regardless, Gitmo is not a foriegn base, it is a US base, so your entire point is pretty moot. It isnt a syrian base with us agents in it, it is our base, run by us, owned by us, reporting to us.

[bones_7672]

10. Just because someone is born in another country ...

... doesn't make them equal, but the protections of our constitution is for our country. Our Gov't has not granted those protections to those at Gitmo, and this is something that is not new with our war on terror, but is a concept that goes back in our history.

[K-W]

11. Rights are rights, nobody grants them.

Our nation is founded on a constitution that contains a bill of RIGHTS. These are rights that belong to PEOPLE that the government must respect.

Unless you want to argue that the people in Gitmo arent human beings, then they have the same rights we do, and because it is our government, with a constitution that garuntees the protection of those RIGHTS, the government cannot abridge those rights.

There are two actors involved in this equation.
The US Government
A Person.

People have rights, the constitution says that the government must respect those rights.

I really dont see where you are confused.

[Book Lover]

12. Thank you for this clarification

While driving to work this morning, I heard on our local NPR station that the oldest woman in the US had passed away; the announcer said that she had voted in every election since women were granted the right to vote. I nearly had an accident! Every citizen *has* the right to vote - the gov't may or may not recognize that right, but it exists.

[K-W]

15. Our country seems to have forgotten what rights are.

As a whole.

Everytime I hear someone tell me that people dont have rights against corporations I want to vomit.

People have rights no matter where or who they are dealing with. The question is, are those rights being protected. The constitution doesnt give us those rights, it simply says that the government must respect them.

[Art_from_Ark]

42. Look up the 19th Amendment, ratified August 18, 1920

That is what they are referring to regarding women being granted the right to vote.

[Book Lover]

43. Uh, yeah - what's your point?

Mine is that rights are inherent and governments recognize them, not grant them from some munificence.

[sangh0]

14. Everyone has INALIENABLE rights

but under our constitution, only American citizens are entitled to have all their rights protected by the US Govt.

[K-W]

16. Our government has long found ways to not apply the bill of rights

to people, I dont know why on earth you are defending that as correct.

At one time it was 'constitutional' to own slaves. If you are arguing in that sense, then yes, I agree. But that isnt my point.

I realize the US government hasnt been giving rights to non-citizens, I am saying that is should because of the many times the US has classified people outside of those protections it has always been wrong and counter the entire point of having a bill of rights.

[sangh0]

18. You read too much into my post

I dont know why on earth you are defending that as correct.

Where did I say it was "correct"? Like you, I merely acknowledged what the law says. I said nothing about it's morality or it's "correctness"

At one time it was 'constitutional' to own slaves. If you are arguing in that sense, then yes, I agree. But that isnt my point.

It wasn't my point either. My point is that the idea that ALL persons have INALIENABLE rights is different than the idea that ALL persons have rights that the US Govt is obligated, under our Constitution, to protect.

And I am remaining silent on how it SHOULD be. I have only commented on how it is, IMO.

[K-W]

19. If they didnt want it to be a bill of rights, why the name?

It isnt a bill of priveleges.

I just dont see where you are justifying your opinion. Since when was the bill or rights not intended as an absolute protection for people against the powers of government.

Since when is the bill of rights an exclusive club offering the privelege of rights to only those people that the government allows to have them.

You dont see the inherent contradiction in this view of the bill of rights? Either the bill of rights protects all people from the abuse of the power of the United States Government or it isnt a bill of rights.

Are you really arguing that we set up a governemnt on the principles of human rights and democracy, with the intention that it was allowed to violate both as long as it doesnt do it to citizens?

[sangh0]

22. US law doesn't necessarily apply to citizens of other nations

Since when was the bill or rights not intended as an absolute protection for people against the powers of government.

Since it was written. In fact, there was a debate about this exact issue during the Constitutional Convention.

Are you really arguing that we set up a governemnt on the principles of human rights and democracy, with the intention that it was allowed to violate both as long as it doesnt do it to citizens?

Yes, I am. How do you think they denied blacks their rights? Are you really arguing that the Constitution was meant to give blacks those rights but somehow they forgot to actually do it?

[K-W]

24. Nobody is talking about the law applying to citizens of other countries.

We are talking about the law being applied to people in custody of the US government. They may not be citizens of any country.

Whether you want to call that person a US citizen or not, I really dont care. They have just as much a right to the constitutional protection of thier rights against the power of the US government as we do.

If you think that slavery was ever in line with our bill of rights, I dont see any point in discussing this with you.

The fact that our leaders have basterdized the bill of rights since its inception, doesnt mean I have to accept the continued basterdization of those rights.

The founding fathers werent perfect, how is that an excuse to violate peoples rights?

[sangh0]

25. You're conflating inalienable rights with constitutional rights

The people in the custody of the US who are not citizens DO have inalienable rights, but our govt only has the powers that the Constitution gives it. The Constitution does not give any branch of the govt the power to force another branch of the govt to protect a non-citizens rights.

While the Constitution does prohibit the govt from doing some things (such as cruel and unusual punishment) to people REGARDLESS of their citizenship (or lack thereof), there's nothing in the Constituion that compels the govt to protect the inalienable rights of non-citizens.

An example of this would be how non-citizens are tried for a criminal offense in the same manner as a citizen. However, it's not because they have the same Constitutional rights. It's because the Constitution dictates the standards for criminal trials, and doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. IOW, it's because the Constitution does not give the govt the power to hold a criminal trial in any other way.

[K-W]

26. Make up your mind.

"While the Constitution does prohibit the govt from doing some things (such as cruel and unusual punishment) to people REGARDLESS of their citizenship (or lack thereof), there's nothing in the Constituion that compels the govt to protect the inalienable rights of non-citizens."

So the constitution does apply to non-citizens now?

Btw, I have never once confused inalianeble rights from constituional rights. The bill of rights lists certain rights that the government must specifically respect. The rights are not granted by the government, they belong to people, the bill of rights just makes it clear that the government must respect these rights.

So you really cant argue that the government can ever abridge these rights in anyone and still be in line with the constitution. The constitition says that the government shall not violate these rights.

It doesnt say the government shall not violate these rights only when dealing with people it considers to be deserving of them.

[sangh0]

27. There's no contradiction

So the constitution does apply to non-citizens now?

No, what I said is that the Constitution has restrictions on the powers of the US Government. Our government cannot cruelly and/or unusually punish anyone because the Constitution applies to our government and NOT because it applies to non-citizens. The COnstitution and the BOR are silent about whether or not a non-citizen has a right to not be punished cruelly because it's a moot point because the govt isn't allowed to do it anyway.

Btw, I have never once confused inalianeble rights from constituional rights. The bill of rights lists certain rights that the government must specifically respect. The rights are not granted by the government, they belong to people, the bill of rights just makes it clear that the government must respect these rights.

Nope, and you're doing it again.

1) The BOR does more than list rights the govt must respect. In fact, it says nothing about respect. The BOR does limit the govt's powers to infringe on those rights and the Constitution requires the govt to protect the rights of US citizens.

2) The BOR does not say that a person's inalienable rights must be protected by the US Govt. However, the Constitution does require the govt to protect the rights of it's citizens.

3) The Constitution allows the govt to infringe on a person's rights in a number of situations, such as when one right conflicts with another.

So you really cant argue that the government can ever abridge these rights in anyone and still be in line with the constitution. The constitition says that the government shall not violate these rights.

Yes, I can and No, it doesn't.

It doesnt say the government shall not violate these rights only when dealing with people it considers to be deserving of them.

It says that the govt must give everyone accused of a crime a fair trial. It doesn't say that any non-citizen has the right to a fair trial. It merely prohibits the govt from criminally trying somoene in an unfair trial.

[K-W]

28. That entire post is a contradiction.

"Our government cannot cruelly and/or unusually punish anyone because the Constitution applies to our government and NOT because it applies to non-citizens."

Welcome to what I have been saying ALL DAY.

When I say respect rights, I mean not infringe upon them. I dunno why you are nitpicking my choice of words.

And again, I have never confused inalianable rights with constitutional rights, you are reading things I never wrote.

"3) The Constitution allows the govt to infringe on a person's rights in a number of situations, such as when one right conflicts with another."

Only with due process.

"It says that the govt must give everyone accused of a crime a fair trial. It doesn't say that any non-citizen has the right to a fair trial. It merely prohibits the govt from criminally trying somoene in an unfair trial."

Lol. Did you read this after you wrote it?

So the BOR does say that a non citizen must be given a fair trial, but it doesnt say that the person has a right to a fair trial?

Do you even need me in this discussion or can you just pit two different ways of phrasing the same thing against each other by yourself?

Im wondering why you think they called it the bill of rights, when you seem to think it is just some governmental parameters. Why didnt they jsut put it in the main body of the constitution then?

[H2O Man]

30. You should take a course

in a classroom setting that explains what the Constitution can and cannot do for people. While the ideas you are expressing are noble, it is obvious that you are not familiar with the application of the Constitution in real life.

[K-W]

33. I have studied the constitution quite a bit.

You seem to have completely missed my point.

I am not discussing how the constitution HAS been used or IS used.

I am discussing how it SHOULD be used.

[H2O Man]

36. Actually, you said something

very different in your first post, regarding Gitmo, that did not suggest what "should" be. And your exchange with sangh0 indicates you do not have a good basic grasp of what the Constitution actually says.

[sangh0]

31. That's not what you've been saying

You've been saying that non-citizens have a right to not be punished cruelly. They don't.

The reason why non-citizens are not punished cruelly is because the Constitution does not give the govt the POWER to punish ANYONE cruelly.

When I say respect rights, I mean not infringe upon them. I dunno why you are nitpicking my choice of words.

The non-citizens do not have the rights you are claiming they have.

Only with due process.

Not true. Our govt can deport and/or imprison refugees without any due process. It happens every day.

So the BOR does say that a non citizen must be given a fair trial, but it doesnt say that the person has a right to a fair trial?

Wrong. The BOR does NOT say "a non citizen must be given a fair trial". It just does not give the govt the power to have any other kind of criminal trial.

Do you even need me in this discussion or can you just pit two different ways of phrasing the same thing against each other by yourself?

You may think it's insignificant hair-splitting, but there are hundreds of detainees who have to live with the profound significance of this while spending years incarcerated without being charge or tried.

Im wondering why you think they called it the bill of rights, when you seem to think it is just some governmental parameters. Why didnt they jsut put it in the main body of the constitution then?

Do you know about the controversy at the Constitutional Convention over whether there should even *BE* a BOR?

[K-W]

34. So the bill of rights has nothing to do with rights?

I dont care about the controversy (although I do know about it) there IS a bill of rights. It does list rights. It is set apart from the rest of the constitution.

The reason the constitution says the government cannot do thoes things is because people have rights. If the point of the bill of rights was to do what you say it does, it wouldnt be called the bill of rights. It would be called the bill of things the government cannot do.

Our government can do whatever the hell it wants. That doesnt make it in line with the constitution.

I am not confusing the bill of rights and natural rights, just drawing the clear connection between them that you seem to want to ignore.

Non-citizens have rights whether you or John Ashcroft think they should. Whether they are afforded these rights by our government is certainly another story.

[H2O Man]

37. The Bill of Rights ....

is not set apart from the rest of the Constitution. With that statement alone, you expose your lack of familiarity and understanding of the document.

[gollygee]

49. Wrong

My husband is not a citizen but still has rights under the constitution.

[GOPisEvil]

29. We were endowed by our creator with these rights.

Meaning, they exist in nature. Man just codifies them.

Excellent points K-W.

[sangh0]

32. Nope

it doesn't say that we were endowed, by our Creator, with Constitutional rights.

[K-W]

35. Nobody is saying that.

So why are you arguing it?

What we are saying is that the bill of rights are a code designed to protect the natural rights of people against the abuses of government.

Thus when the government is dealing with people, it should obey the bill of rights regardless of where that person happened to have been living before the US got involved.

[sangh0]

47. You've been saying that

and you just repeated it

What we are saying is that the bill of rights are a code designed to protect the natural rights of people against the abuses of government.

Thus when the government is dealing with people, it should obey the bill of rights regardless of where that person happened to have been living before the US got involved.

The BOR is NOT simply a document that protects the natural rights of people. The Constitution as a whole, of which the BOR is a part, has several functions in addition to that, such as detailing the structure of our government, listing the powers our govt has been delegated, etc). The BOR fits right into that scheme, which it couldn't do it if it were devoted to protecting the rights of "persons" and nothing else.

Go re-read the BOR and you'll see that some of it's provision are silent about rights, and instead focus solely and explicitely on limiting the governments power to do something. That's because in order to protect people's rights, the law must also give the govt the powers it needs to protect those rights, while at the same, limit those same powers to insure that they don't infringe on people's rights unnecesarily

And please note the use of the word "unnecessarily". It implies that the govt DOES have the power to infringe on people's rights. If the BOR is solely about people's rights, then how does it allow the infringement of the same?

[RuleofLaw]

17. would you care to cite an example of that?

[sangh0]

23. There was an example cited

the detainess at Gitmo.

[Carson]

6. Non US citizens do not necessarily have Constitutional rights.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008367/

Do Noncitizens Have Constitutional Rights?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Thursday, Sept. 27, 2001, at 2:47 PM PT

Attorney General John Ashcroft wants the power to lock up immigrants suspected of terrorism and hold them indefinitely. Wouldn't this violate the Constitution?

Not necessarily. True, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.)

But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. "One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

Still, immigrants facing deportation do have some rights. Most are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, representation by a lawyer (but not one that's paid for by the government), and interpretation for non-English-speakers. The government must provide "clear and convincing" evidence to deport someone (a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt").

On the other hand, some immigrants who are suspected terrorists may not be allowed to confront the evidence against them. In 1996, Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secret tribunal that can examine classified evidence. (Interestingly, Congress mandated in the same law that an immigrant tried by the terrorist court would have the right to counsel at government expense.) But the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has never been used, and a Department of Justice spokesman said he isn't aware of any plans to use the terrorist court any time soon.

[K-W]

8. How is the US's history of violating our constitution

evidence of the meaning of the constitution?

I am painfully aware of how John Ashcroft and those who have preceeded them have put parts of the governemnt above the constitution.

[gWbush is Mabus]

9. rights of prisoners were goverened not by the Const. but by the Geneva Con

Geneva Conventions are for the "constitutional rights" of POWs

unfortunately, we don't care what they say

[H2O Man]

38. Correct

on both points you make.

[DrWeird]

13. These threads make it easy to see who's really an American.

Sure, technically, if you're an American citizen, you're an American. But real Americans don't consider the Constitution to be a technicality that can be avoided if you want to violate the spirit of what this country stands for.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[RuleofLaw]

20. Further more

US law makes it illegal to torture. So the laws are applied to the torturer, not the person being tortured. Whether somebody can sue in American courts, using American law, is different from someone breaking American law.

By admitting to the fact that the US is torturing people, the administration is admitting to breaking US law! Period.

Imagine if the country of Bizarro World allowed pedophilia. And it was discovered that the US Embassy ran be the biggest child sex ring in the country. Would we say that is OK because its not illegal in Bizzaro World and the children have no Constitutional rights? No, because pedophilia is illegal for any US citizen.

We need to stop focusing on the abused and their rights, and start to focus on the abusers and how they violate US law every day!

U.S. LAW PROHIBITS TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/after_911/PDF/Torture.pdf

Any practice of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by United States officials violates international human rights standards to which the United States is a party. These include the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention),
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.1

The use of torture also violates U.S. law. In 1994, Congress passed a new federal law which specifically provides for penalties including fines and up to 20 years’ imprisonment for acts of torture committed by American or other officials outside the United States. In cases where torture results in death of the victim, the sentence is life
imprisonment or execution.2

1 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm (accessed January 27, 2003). The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is available at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html (accessed January 27, 2003). Article 1 of the Torture Convention defines “torture” as: ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, available at tp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340a.html Section 2340 (available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2340

[m berst]

21. exactly

To say that people are "entitled" to rights or that rights are "granted" by government is oppositional to the theory and principles of our government. This was much more widely agreed upon 30 or 40 years ago, but right wingers have been hammering on the idea of the government having rights and the citizens having privileges. Now many Americans see it this way, too.

[donhakman]

39. Not all have the same rights

Take a soldier for example, or slaves who were granted 3/5's citizenship in the 1800's.

[m berst]

45. no exceptions

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

No ambiguity. No exceptions. No categories. No conditions.

You have the right to breathe whether I strangle you or not.

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Governments are instituted to secure these right - not to grant, not to discriminate as to who is entitled, not to deny them to others.

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

There just isn't any ambiguity in the document. I can't understand the confusion.

[sangh0]

48. "No ambiguity. No exceptions. No categories. No conditions."

And no legal standing. The Declaration of Independence is a historical document, and it has no legal authority. It wasn't written by a legislature or voted on. It was a political statement.

The confusion is caused by not realizing that the DoI is NOT a legal document

[m berst]

53. what is a legal document, then?

What could be more legally significant than the statement describing the foundation for the legitimacy of the government itself? Is not the document that legitimatizing the creation of a Constitution, which then creates a legislature superior to the subsequent laws that said legislature enacts?

As I said on another post, Lincoln argued that the phrase "all men are created equal.." in the DoP was superior to all law. He did not say that we should therefore ignore law, rather that the lawmakers were ignoring the DoP when they made many laws, and that this was wrong both legally and morally. He recognized that as President he did not have the legal right to end slavery, but more importantly he recognized that the law did not therefor require him to justify slavery.

The question here I think is not so much one of what could or could not be argued in a court of law, but rather it goes back to the will of the people - the ultimate authority. When laws or legalisms violate the principles set out in the foundational documents that define the legitimate existence of the entire government, we are obliged to fight these laws and to see them as illegitimate.

Our government was established to do the right thing, not the legal thing. In the absence of moral principles, the whole framework of legality collapses.

[bvar22]

44. The Constitution does not grant rights to anyone.

The Condtitution DOES forbid the government from doing certain specific things.
One of the things the Constitution forbids our government from doing is torturing anyone, anywhere.

There are no special exceptions for the US Government in the 8th Ammendment.


Amendment VIII

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

[m berst]

46. correct

That amendment limits the power of the government, it does not grant rights to anyone, let alone only to certain people. The US government is forbidden to do this, with no qualifications or exceptions.

[sangh0]

50. The Constitution and BOR RECOGNIZES rights

and delegates limited powers to the govt in order to protect those rights from being infringed.

Whole our legal frameword does, in name, recognize that non-citizens also have inalienable rights, the Constitution does not always delegate to our govt the powers needed to protect the rights of non-citizens.

Bottom line: While our legal system recognizes that non-citizens have rights, our govt is not always required to protect them, and sometimes, it is not prohibited from infringing on them.

[m berst]

51. maybe not prohibited

I would say that it is not so much an issue of prohibition of government actions, nor requirements of government, but an issue of legitimacy.

We have a clash here of technical legalities with broader moral principles. Lincoln faced a similar conflict, I think. Was it the intention of the founding fathers to permit the expansion of slavery? They didn't specifically outlaw it. Lincoln argued that they would not have wanted to see it expanded, and that expanding it into areas that it did not exist would inevitably lead to it being accepted everywhere. I would argue that the founding fathers did not expect to see exceptions to the government's obligation to respect human rights, and that allowing violations anywhere will lead to violations everywhere.

Do you not think that the founding fathers saw government as something of a dangerous beast to be kept chained? It is the chaining of the government that is important, not the legalities of where the government does or does not have power to do certain things. I would say that we not only do not want the government to be torturing us and acting against us in defiance of the Constitution, but we also do not want the government "practicing" on those upon whom it can get away with mistreating on a legal technicality. I would say that we do not want our government building the agencies and training our personnel in the arts of torture, nor in the legalistic excusing of it.

Lincoln also said about slavery that it was foolhardy to discuss the issue without addressing the moral issues. "We think it wrong" was the foundation of the Republican party's stance on slavery, not "we think it illegal." I take the position that "we think it wrong" when it comes to our government torturing people, whether it can or can't justify it legally. I would also take the position that thinking it wrong trumps whether or not we think it legal.

[mattclearing]

52. "We hold these truths to be self evident..."

"...that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Thomas Jefferson, if anyone was wondering.

Yeah. All men. Not all Americans. And since we've extended this to mean all women in many respects, that means that every human being on the planet is endowed with these rights.

You never hear Republicans standing up for the rights of people who get in the way of our bombs, though. Only the lucky Iraqi people we miss have inalienable rights. We'll liberate them.

The rest are cannon-fodder.

Edited to note that this is from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. However, the Declaration is a statement of principle that instigated the Revolution. Hopefully we're still working with it in mind.

[knight_of_the_star]

54. 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I pay especially close attention to the last line, I think that it would be strict constructionism to follow that to the letter and not ignore it.