• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does The U.S. Constitution prohibit torture?

Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit torture?


  • Total voters
    34
Yes

No

Other

The constitution doesn't address torture. The Geneva Convention and a couple other agreements that the US is a signatory to prohibit torture of soldiers in time of war. There is no uniform standard protecting combatants who don't represent a nation state. The reason for this is that an agreement is reached between nations who are signatories, not loosely defined groups bound by an ideology and not represented by a government. That's why Feinstine and McCain speak in terms of American values when addressing the nonsense that the Senate Democrats authored. There is no defining law protecting enemy combatant terrorists unless they are officially charged in our criminal justice system. If they are charged with a crime, they are protected.
 
My experience has been that a lot of people talk a good game. I don't doubt there's alot of anger out there, I just doubt that there are lot of people who could stomach personally torturing someone else.

Never underestimate humans' capacity for doing evil. It lurks within every single one of us.
 
There's nothing in the Constitution that I'm aware of that prohibits torture but that's the wrong question. The right question is
"Do the American people want to accept that torture, a morally reprehensible and ineffective tactic, is being done in their name?"



Some American people not only want it done, they would be glad to do it.
 
Question, are the rights in the constitution applicable to people who are not citizens of the US and rather, POWs of an enemy of the country?
 
I don't have a problem with putting a bullet in the bad guy's head. But making someone suffer for extended periods is sick.

I'm sure many of the people who advocate for torture are really looking for revenge.
Not so sure they'd be so quick to go for if if they were the ones inflicting the pain
.



There are over 300-million people in the USA and some of them are mighty sick.
 
Are individual terrorists criminals or national security threats?

They are not domestic criminals if they are in anyway related to ISIS IMO, and as such, our constitution does not provide them any rights whatsoever.

What can be somewhat tricky though is a US citizen who then acts with the terrorists, but I'm sure they can be tried for treason and hung like a pig.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason = "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I prefer a death sentence for these bastards rather than a measly 5 year sentence and 10,000 dollar fine (which just doesn't cut it).
 
Are individual terrorists criminals or national security threats?

Criminals. The question though was a general one and not specific to terrorists. And even cruel and unusual applies to punishment not interrogations.
 
There are over 300-million people in the USA and some of them are mighty sick.

So a bunch of folks have told me. Suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I couldn't. Killing someone who needs killing is one thing. Brutalizing someone for hours?
 
I might have read it a time or 2 in the last 60 years... I might have read a couple of dozens cases having to do with the supremacy clause as well.


the supremacy clause, overall, is about state laws/statutes/Constitutions and their relationship to the US Constitutions and federal law.( US law is supreme to state law)
the supremacy clause is not applicable to a case in which the primary actor is the federal government allegedly violating federal law.....

the supremacy clause really has zero to do with the EIT/Torture issue... absolutely nothing.

if you are trying to involve a UN treaty in the mix, and using the supremacy clause as a way to say " see! we are bound to the UN treaty!".. there's absolutely no need to do so... it's already barred in the US code...Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113C › § 2340A

EIT is allowable under our US code.. provided the person being interrogated is not present in the US and is not a US "national".
(well, it doesn't so much allow it as it stipulates jurisdiction...)

The US code you posted seems to suggest that the US has jurisdiction over all U.S. nationals that commit torture whether they're on US soil or not. It doesn't seem to address the nationality, rights or locale of the those being tortured at all.


The legality of torture under the Bush administration was a one sided legal argument that didn't hold up constitutionally. Those that didn't agree with the administration's OLC were either fired or ignored.


Torture Memos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
They are not domestic criminals if they are in anyway related to ISIS IMO, and as such, our constitution does not provide them any rights whatsoever.

What can be somewhat tricky though is a US citizen who then acts with the terrorists, but I'm sure they can be tried for treason and hung like a pig.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason = "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I prefer a death sentence for these bastards rather than a measly 5 year sentence and 10,000 dollar fine (which just doesn't cut it).
If U.S. citizens owe allegiance to the united states, then why do we need a constitution or why do some swear to defend the const. against enemies foreign or domestic
??????
 
If U.S. citizens owe allegiance to the united states, then why do we need a constitution or why do some swear to defend the const. against enemies foreign or domestic
??????

Stupid nonsense, do you even know where the definition for treason comes from?

You ask "why do we need a constitution if US citizens owe allegiance to the US?" when it is that very document that DEFINES WHAT TREASON IS :lamo
 
Stupid nonsense, do you even know where the definition for treason comes from?

You ask "why do we need a constitution if US citizens owe allegiance to the US?" when it is that very document that DEFINES WHAT TREASON IS :lamo

There was a definition of treason before the const. was written. what you dont understand is that treason didnt become rebellion against the u.s. until after the civil war. Perhaps I should have asked ( what does it mean to owe allegience to the u.s. ?)
 
There was a definition of treason before the const. was written.

Irrelevant.

what you dont understand is that treason didnt become rebellion against the u.s. until after the civil war.

Absolute unfounded BS, there were a good amount of trials against people for treason before the onset of the civil war.

Perhaps I should have asked ( what does it mean to owe allegience to the u.s. ?)

If you're a U.S. citizen or even an ally of the U.S. and you wage war against us (literally pick up arms against the United States) or provide aid/comfort to the enemy (this includes all direct and indirect conscious helping which can be: giving intelligence, giving housing, giving food or drink, giving armaments, etc.) of the USA during wartime (it is wartime, we are in Iraq/Afghanistan, in fact, the USA for the most part is in a state of perpetual war it seems) you can and will be tried of treason, and unless pardoned, will most likely be sentenced to death (as scum traitors should be, no one likes a rat).
 
Irrelevant.



Absolute unfounded BS, there were a good amount of trials against people for treason before the onset of the civil war.



If you're a U.S. citizen or even an ally of the U.S. and you wage war against us (literally pick up arms against the United States) or provide aid/comfort to the enemy (this includes all direct and indirect conscious helping which can be: giving intelligence, giving housing, giving food or drink, giving armaments, etc.) of the USA during wartime (it is wartime, we are in Iraq/Afghanistan, in fact, the USA for the most part is in a state of perpetual war it seems) you can and will be tried of treason, and unless pardoned, will most likely be sentenced to death (as scum traitors should be, no one likes a rat).

before the civil war to commit treason in the usa a person was an enemy of the people, after the c war treason became rebellion against the federal gov. it seems today a person cannot truly defend the const. against ALL enemies, but only enemies our gov. chooses
 
before the civil war to commit treason in the usa a person was an enemy of the people, after the c war treason became rebellion against the federal gov. it seems today a person cannot truly defend the const. against ALL enemies, but only enemies our gov. chooses

Well of course, the government, as a citizen or ally of it, is the only thing you can commit treason against.

And the only way you can commit treason is by helping an enemy of the state, directly or indirectly, otherwise it's not treason, but something else like regular murder/manslaughter/espionage/what-have-you.

What are you discontent about with the definition of treason?
 
Well of course, the government, as a citizen or ally of it, is the only thing you can commit treason against.

And the only way you can commit treason is by helping an enemy of the state, directly or indirectly, otherwise it's not treason, but something else like regular murder/manslaughter/espionage/what-have-you.

What are you discontent about with the definition of treason?

Do those who have sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic, honor their oath or do they obey the federal gov? do we support a gov of by and for the people ? or a totalitarian,intrusive, and dictatorial regime? do we support freedom? or a police state?
 
Do those who have sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic, honor their oath or do they obey the federal gov? do we support a gov of by and for the people ? or a totalitarian,intrusive, and dictatorial regime? do we support freedom? or a police state?

Sounds to me like you're talking about the oath of allegiance for those who want to become naturalized citizens.

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America | USCIS

It's goals are to:

#1 support the constitution

#2 Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen

#3 Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Yes, you must defend the constitution AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES against not only domestic enemies, but more importantly, FOREIGN ENEMIES. If anyone, a citizen or ally of the United States, aids a foreign enemy in any way shape or form against the USA, that is, the constitution and all the laws here within the USA, they are committing treason and must be put to trial and hopefully executed for being such treacherous rats.
 
Sounds to me like you're talking about the oath of allegiance for those who want to become naturalized citizens.

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America | USCIS

It's goals are to:

#1 support the constitution

#2 Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen

#3 Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Yes, you must defend the constitution AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES against not only domestic enemies, but more importantly, FOREIGN ENEMIES. If anyone, a citizen or ally of the United States, aids a foreign enemy in any way shape or form against the USA, that is, the constitution and all the laws here within the USA, they are committing treason and must be put to trial and hopefully executed for being such treacherous rats.

the constitution can come into conflict with the federal or state gov. or a person who utilizes the constitution can find themselves facing backlash from forces within the u.s. and then find no help or support from government agencies. This causes me to believe the gov is an enemy of the people and the constitution.
 
A person who utilizes the constitution can find themselves facing backlash from forces within the u.s. and then find no help or support from government agencies

Depends on what you mean by utilize, no rights are considered unlimited, although in the context of gun control, you're right and I also find the government to be not so helpful in doing what its supposed to do, that is, secure our rights.

This causes me to believe the gov is an enemy of the people and the constitution.

Bull****, that's a matter of the constitution being misinterpreted, and our rights are hardly under that much of an attack, really, the few things lacking in terms of personal liberties are:

gay marriage and gun control (abortion is legal, the debate is the only thing that continues as "pro-life" people keep rehashing the same **** over and over thinking that the court is going to change the decision it made in Roe v. Wade which it won't)

Outside of that essentially all our rights are retained and secured by our government.

We all have due process, we all can protest PEACEFULLY (Ferguson is FAR from peaceful), we all have free speech (hell we're practicing that right now), we all have the right to not let cops in without a warrant, etc.

Outside of isolated examples of INDIVIDUALS, be they in government or not, infringing upon our rights, the USA continues to be at the forefront of the world in terms of freedom and opportunity and the chance for prosperity (not that it's perfect, but it's a ****-ton better than what you'll get in say, China or Russia or Africa or the ME or even numerous countries in the EU).
 
Back
Top Bottom