Thrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,295
- Reaction score
- 9,801
- Location
- Texas, Vegas, Colombia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes, the US Constitution does prohibit torture but not quite in a way we would want it to. It can be found in article six, second clause.
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Technically by that line alone our agreements with the UN on torture become "supreme law of the land" and as such are Constitutionally recognized. That would mean that all UN resolutions and conventions that we agreed to on Torture as well as the applicable Geneva Conventions we would have to abide by as a matter of law. The awkward part of this is we have no real resolution to challenge this but by the Supreme Court on the grounds of interpretation of any resolutions, conventions, and treaties signed in accordance with our own laws and government limitations. But in this area, there is not much directly stated as a limitation.
The 8th Amendment part of the debate I am not so sure applies near as much.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The jurisprudence of the conversation here has more to do with punishments handed down which at the time of the text had the tone of penalties and punishment that was considered barbaric, or excessive in terms of law. Like public lashings, or burning someone at the stake, or seizing someone's total net worth over a minor violation of the law. Not a bit of the Amendment by design has to do with holding "prisoners of war" or "enemy combatants" or whatever the phrase of the day is to describe someone held in some state without the involvement of process of law.
umm no... treaties do not become "supreme law of the land"....only the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
the Supremacy clause exists to make it clear that the Constitution is supreme to all treaties or laws ( existing or future laws/treaties)
I don't believe the 8th comes into play when we are talking torture of unlawful combatants.... EIT/torture is not a punishment
if the action ( torture) is intended to cause pain/mental anquish, etc.... it would be considered torture and would be unlawful ( not necessarily unconstitutional)
if it is intended to gather information, it can be lawful .
our own law( US code).. and that of the UN.. stipulates that intent is a component to determine whether or not an action is torture.