Sub para (c) is the supposedly "controversial" provision. What could POSSIBLY be more vague and non-transparent than this paragraph? Imagine trying to use this para as the basis for a private-sector lawsuit. Whatever happened to common sense? (We all know the answer to that one, but clearly this is NOT an "debate" over the meaningless opacity of a horribly written sub-paragraph.)
Well, we do have this little document called the Constitution and there's this passage in the Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think we've spent most of the 215 years since the adoption of this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights arguing just exactly what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Bush is asking to avoid having such a moving target be part of the equation when we are dealing with our enemies. After all, arguments among Americans over what the Eighth Amendment means is a civilized and relatively friendly affair compared to the arguments we'll get into with Iran or even the EU over the crap in the Geneva Conventions.
And while we're at it, what ever happened to "they're not in uniform, shoot them as spies"?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think we've spent most of the 215 years since the adoption of this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights arguing just exactly what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Bush is asking to avoid having such a moving target be part of the equation when we are dealing with our enemies. After all, arguments among Americans over what the Eighth Amendment means is a civilized and relatively friendly affair compared to the arguments we'll get into with Iran or even the EU over the crap in the Geneva Conventions.
And while we're at it, what ever happened to "they're not in uniform, shoot them as spies"?
Phsstpok, Wonderful post!!! I really loved the way Secretary of State Rice answered it during her recent interview on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. To paraphrase: "We interpret international treaties all the time." And Phsstpok rightly points out that we do it time with the US Constitution. I an just as baffled as you re the "disappearance" of the "they're out of uniform. Shoot 'em as spies" clause.