Supreme court ruling on what constitutes cruel and unusual and unconstitutional treatment
>>In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment had been contravened when prison officials had disciplined an inmate for disruptive behavior by handcuffing him to a “hitching post”, once for two hours and once for seven hours, depriving the inmate of his shirt, exposing him to the sun, denying his requests for hydration, and refusing to allow him the opportunity to use the bathroom.<<
So, yeah, we are way over the line into torture.
Was this concerning terrorists or people with constitutional rights?
“...Supreme court ruling on what constitutes cruel and unusual and unconstitutional treatment...”
Just an observation, but the unconstitutional part sticks in the craw a bit. If a US citizen was being waterboarded it would be considered unconstitutional/cruel and unusual. An enemy combatant, not in the uniform of a duly recognized national military, and bearing arms against Americans...it is simply interrogation.
None of the techniques mentioned cause permanent damage.
A few differences - seven hours in the sun, without water or a shirt on, could potentially be fatal (heat stroke and sun poisoning). Waterboarding, especially under the extremely controlled conditions in which we practiced it, isn't torture.
Torture leaves long-lasting, if not permanent, scars. Individuals who've been waterboarded show NO ill effects within minutes, if not seconds.