:doh
Yes your claim was desperate, silly, sad and pathetic. There was no Constitutional violation.
What your friend may or may not think is irrelevant.
What you think of what your friend supposedly indicated is also irrelevant.
Neither are relevant to this discussion.
And you thinking that Webster disagrees with me is also irrelevant.
Punishment (in general) is something given for a perceived wrong.
Interrogation is not punishment. Period.
Secondly, this is a legal argument and not an in-general Websters definition argument.
You were wrong for asserting such a flawed argument to begin with. And despite being told this is not a Constitutional argument and informed as to what would be an appropriate argument to make.
(One of Law or Treaty.) you continued on insisting otherwise. Which was really quite silly.
So now lets get on with the facts
I didn't
suggest anything. I clearly stated what it was.
But since you obviously don't know and want to continue arguing this silliness ...
INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT
430 U.S. 651
(1977)
1. [...]
[...]
(a) The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime. Pp. 664-668.
[...]
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
And if you do not understand what the U.S. stands for in the above site reference. It is a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
So stop this misunderstanding you have in regards to the Eighth Amendment. It's intent is as punishment for crimes committed. Period.
And if your friend is real, inform him of this so he also wont be wrong in the future.
As for being on thin ice?
The ones decrying these actions as torture are the ones on thin ice.
As already shown, the Justice department already looked into the "interrogation methods" and found nothing to pursue.