- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
: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.
Please--you are on desperately thin ice. There are already so many torture apologists on it that they're sure to break through. You are trying to debate a poster who has a friend who considers himself "Mr. Constitution." And before you come back with some snappy comment about the fact Mr. Constitution admittedly didn't know what the Eighth Amendment said, let me point out that only the poster and a select few other savants have that recondite knowledge. Contrary to what some might think, you can't just read the text of the Eighth Amendment anywhere.
Just because John Yoo teaches constitutional law at UC Berkeley and spent countless hours meticulously researching every aspect of the law on torture when he was with the Office of Legal Counsel (what do they know, anyway?) doesn't mean he isn't a dumb torture apologist. I'll bet Mr. Constitution or anyone picked at random from the crowd at the local bong shop or "Hands up, don't shoot!" rally knows more about the Constitution than a chump like Yoo. His real job at OLC was just to lick the boots of Shrub and Darth Cheney. What you obviously don't get is that if you want to be in with the in crowd, you need to show some really bitter resentment toward the U.S. You know, just like all those hip people did in the Sixties. The idea is to run this country down, while you take up space here and hold out the crying towel for the jihadists who are howling for American blood.
Also, I wish you would stop confusing the attempts to spread anti-American propaganda with facts and reasoning, as you did by referring to Ingraham or any other Supreme Court decision. How is a self-styled liberal supposed to get anywhere if people insist on citing facts to counter slanders against America? Just because some justices claimed they knew the purpose of the Eighth Amendment doesn't make it so. Their words are nothing but socio-linguistic constructs designed to reify semiotic manifestations of the heuristic zeitgeist, and the medium is the massage. Or whatever it was that Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas and all those other really cool intellectuals said. I'm sure the poster's friend Mr. Constitution would agree.