Another Possible Constitutional Amendment - NO U.S. TORTURE!

[DistressedAmerican]

Since we are kicking around amendments this morning, this one just occurred to me:
An amendment to ban the use of torture by the US government and its various agencies.

Seems like the cruel and unusual punishment thing does not apply to prisoners. Maybe we need something a bit more wide reaching.

Since there was broad bipartisan support for such language in the soon to be vetoed legislation written by McCaine, it might be politically feasible and it could not get the big NO stamp from the chimp.

But, what do you think in principle?

[bryant69]

1. I think it's a good idea

but unlikely in the present climate. Just because the debate would automatically turn towards why we feel the need for such an ammendment (namely Bush has tortured people), and the bill would get mired down in politics).

But political considerations aside; i'd be in favor of it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tk2kewl]

2. No torture is already part of the Constitution

since we signed on to the Geneva Converntions...

Article. VI. Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[DistressedAmerican]

3. Very True Indeed.

Who is failing to enforce that? How does one go about it? Any idea?

I always wonder about these machinations. I'm not sure who enforces the Constitution. I guess that would be the Justice Department?

If so, we are fucked on that one since, torture boy himself runs the show. Would go a long way toward explaining why he got the job though.

[BloodyWilliam]

12. Ideally (Constitutionally), the executive branch enforces the Constitution

Unfortunately, we have these evil bastards in charge, so the point is moot.

Today's American government is like watching someone murder a bum, then running to a cop. The cop takes out his gun and shoots the bum a few more times, then greets the murderer as his brother. Then he turns the gun at you.

Then the metaphor gets cumbersome. ;)

[mattclearing]

4. You are correct. This is mainly an enforcement issue.

This is why there is so much wrangling around the words "prisoner" and "enemy combatant." It is to subvert the Geneva Conventions.

[tk2kewl]

5. how quaint

:grr:

[wtmusic]

10. And it's redundantly covered in the 1995 War Crimes Act 18 USC 2441

(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a grave breach of the Geneva conventions where the victim of such breach is member of the armed forces of the United States or a citizen of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term or years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/congress-war-crimes-act.html

Bottom line: you can write it down on paper as many times as you want, but when you have a criminal cabal running the country you might as well be writing it on toilet paper.

[Ready4Change]

6. I'm all for it.

Seems a natural outflow of "All men are created equal."

The devil's in the details, though. Defining "What is torture?" is likely to derail such a thing.

[whatever4]

7. I think

It seems like if the United States truly believed in inalienable rights, we ought to see fit to treat EVERY human being the same way, with the same rights we accord ourselves. Plain and simple. Human rights are human rights, no matter where the human is born, and no matter who the human works for, moves to, or does.

Constitutional amendment that states human rights are granted to anyone in our custody, for any reason they might be in our custody. Whether their own country of origin accords them these same rights or not. Whether they would TREAT our people the same way or not. WE ought to accord any human the same rights, same civil rights, as we afford ourselves. Our behavior should NEVER be managed by the bad behavior of others.

Else we don't really believe in human rights or civil rights as being "right" or a right, god given or otherwise, if we believe some people deserve them more than others.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Can I Get An AMEN!!!

"WE ought to accord any human the same rights, same civil rights, as we afford ourselves. "

That is the clincher right there. Either we respect all human rights or we should start referring to American Rights exclusively!

[whatever4]

11. Yeah

If we believe in that stuff...we ought to friggin act like it, whether anyone's watching to make sure we do good or not. It ought to be our ideal to do good, to enforce and expand and prove the WORTH of those rights. I mean, if we can't do that, what the hell good are we? What the hell good do we do anybody??

HUMAN RIGHTS aren't just for Americans.

Like, being a responsible parent. I don't not beat my kids so I don't get into trouble. That is not my motivation. I don't beat my kids because it's wrong, hurtful, and I don't want my kids beat by anyone, not me or anyone. It's called being responsible. Doesn't take someone standing over my shoulder to make sure of it. And then further, I wouldn't see fit to beat someone else's kid, just because I could get away with it. NO. This is the same thing. If we believe in human rights, we ought to be living it. Looking at those prisons and the torture, they forgot what it's ALL about, ALL of it.

[BurtWorm]

9. A more general amendment respecting the rights of noncitizens

would include this, even stating it explicitly. But the underlying principle should be that noncitizens are owed human rights. What a radical amendment that would be!