Posted on 12/10/2014 5:03:48 PM PST by Bettyprob
Texas Senator Ted Cruz is reminding Americans that no civilized nation should ever torture prisoners.
“Torture is wrong, unambiguously. Period. The end. Civilized nations do not engage in torture and Congress has rightly acted to make absolutely clear that the United States will not engage in torture,” Cruz said during the Q-and-A portion of a speech at the Heritage Foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No, it's not; the context of the Bill of Rights is explicitly laid out in its own prologue:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.It explicitly spells out that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to add declaratory/restrictive clauses to ensure that the government's powers (a) won't be misconstrued, (b) won't be abused, and (c) tempered in a manner beneficial for the government-as-an-institution. — It would be entirely improper to take them as binding against citizens because the citizens are not the government.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
You need to get your brain out of the left brained programming world and learn a little something about the broad view, the big picture. You’re so buried in details you’ve forgotten WTF you are even reading!!
The Bill of Rights?
It's a collection of further declaratory and restrictive clauses
(that is to say constraints
) placed upon the government.
The left-brain is precisely where you want to be when dealing with law; many of the terribad [judicial] decisions we've seen in the past hundred years are precisely elevating expedience over the actual text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, take for example Schenck v. United States:
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.Look, they are explicitly saying
all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights, but because
Congress has a right to preventthings of
a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evilsthey can ignore the Bill of Rights, namely the First Amendment prohibition on abridging the freedom of the press [or speech].
And you're trying to tell me that the big picture
somehow makes the Constitutional constraints on government only apply when there's a Citizen involved?
you are an idiot. You haven’t laid a hand on my case, which is slam dunk against you. You use hundreds and hundreds of words - and yet you don’t address the issue.
You have yet to point out a damned syllable that would indicate this is for Citizens.
NO, it’s a document...of protection....FOR CITIZENS only.
You’re bass ackwards!!!!!
I can’t believe the LD’s posting on this. (Especially one little chippy here who I am gonna bet is a ‘RAT voter anyway). REAL torture inflicts EXTREME pain and agony on the victim for very extended, (sometimes), durations. Water boarding, panties on the heads etc. etc. etc. is NOT torture. (It is very uncomfortable sure but the terrorists know about water boarding and they know they are gonna live thru it). Then we have the LD’s who post: If we do it to them they will do it to us.....Good God!!! They do it, (and will continue to do it), no matter what WE do or don’t do. If it was up to me I’d have the American murdering terrorist head choppers heated up with a blow torches.
A simple hanging is enough for terrorists. By the way America doesnot even have the strength for simple hanging.
Let's look at some of the language:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
keep your wallet hiddenclassification for tourists.)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial […]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
Very interesting exchange between you two. I think I may have a solution that is quite reasonable.
I do not believe it is reasonable to infer that the Bill of Rights was intended by its authors to extend to the entire world’s citizenry. It’s original intent was to apply to all people in the natural borders of the United States, be they citizens or not. This was of course contingent upon whether or not they were citizens when citizenship was a key component of a law in question. Treason for example. It wouldn’t be possible to try anyone for treason if such a person wasn’t a citizen of the US to begin with. Thus we can see some of the Constitution wasn’t written for non-Citizens.
However returning to the notion of sovereignty that I touched on briefly before, some of the Constitution was written for all people not just citizens. These would be the Bill of Rights (mostly). We can see this is true from One Wing’s examples of the hapless tourist losing his wallet to the state, or being subjected to midnight break-ins of his hotel room. This isn’t done, because it’s against the law and its against the law because its against the Constitution.
Now there are portions of the Bill of Rights that can’t apply to non-citizens even if they are on American soil, such as the right to bear arms, because clearly that right is granted to Americans to defend themselves from oppressive government. Not every person on the planet.
This is where we find our happy medium I’d say: the Constitution was written by Americans to protect US citizens from overreaching government. On US soil. Overseas it has no application. But anywhere on sovereign US soil, it does, whether one is a US citizen or not. Why? The reason is simple, because otherwise there would be nothing to prevent the egregious acts One Winged described and also, in granting such protections to anyone, citizen or not on US soil the rule of law can be more easily maintained. This again though would not apply to non citizens overseas. This simply must be the intent of the founders; they didn’t intend to set up a world government, no matter how limited. They only intended to protect everyone from their proposed government while on US soil.
He's kneeling; his hands are cuffed or zip-tied behind him.
There's a masked guy, in black, standing next to and slightly behind him. He's got a large knife. He's ranting in Arabic, pissed off because the world believes he's nothing more than a savage - after ACTING like a savage - and his book tells him to kill all who don't believe what he believes.
There's a cameraman in front of the kneeling guy. He believes the same thing as Knife Boy.
They've been filming the hostage over and over; for days maybe. The kneeling man KNOWS that he's going to die, horribly, just not when. Every time they do this, he thinks today is the day. When it doesn't happen, he begins to think - because it's HUMAN nature for him to believe - that MAYBE, they'll let him go - despite all past stories to the contrary.
Then, one day, Knife Boy in black carries out his threats and saws the man's head off, for his family and the world to see. The hostage screams, gurgles through his torn throat, and is dead.
Now it's on YouTube. His family can see his horrific death, iover and over. Idiots with no sense of decency will post and re-post it hundreds of times out of morbidity, making the loved ones of this poor man relive it over and over.
That's terror.
That's horror.
And THAT is torture.
Waterboarding does not equate to this in ANY way.
I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for these people. If we catch them, do whatever needs to be done to prevent an American from being murdered.
If these animals want Geneva Convention protection, then they should stop acting like animals.
Which isn't likely to happen.
maybe - but you CANNOT apply it to enemy combatants, ever, period, under any circumstance.
I agree the founders intent with regards to the Bill of Rights was/is that it does not apply to enemy combatants not on US soil or who are not US citizens (wherever they are).
Wow
His first EFF up.....geezuss
I agree
If he’s buying the narrative... mistake
But remember he is an enemy to los Bushees and LA familia Rovia
Could be more going on here
Let me state my position in post 290 positively for (hopefully) more clarity.
US citizens enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights wherever they are, non citizens do not enjoy such protections when not in the US. (We enjoy protections against our own government not protections against foreign governments (this is why we can’t ignore local laws while overseas))
Both citizens and non citizens enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights while on US soil, with the exception of the second amendment. Non-citizens never enjoy this protection.
what about enemy combatants at somewhere like Gitmo? is that on US Soil for purposes of this reasoning? Are they protected?
Perfect ‘Hale!! If you have the time, go back thru this thread and post/ping that to those liberal ‘RAT enablers here that do NOT understand what REAL torture is. Can you believe their bullsh$t line: ‘If we do not do it to them they will not do it to us when they capture our guys’.....UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE!!! How can anybody be that damn dumb to think that?
I believe Gitmo is considered US soil is it not, even though it’s in Cuba? If so, I would answer your question “Yes, they enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights while imprisoned at Gitmo”. This is why, speaking for myself here, I always thought it was foolish to transport them to the continental US for a “fair trial”. They are already on US soil, try them there if “you” (meaning the Federal government) wants. This is why they didn’t though.
The Feds (the whole alphabet soup here in conjunction with the military) never had any intention of trying them fairly. Which is why eventually they weren’t moved I suspect. To seperate them as much as possible from the legal system.
Which is fine by me if that’s their intention, just be honest about it is all I say.
They never should have been transported to Guantanamo Bay to begin with in other words. They should have been kept overseas, transported off base as soon as possible and held in some Pakistani hell hole while “interrogation” took place. Then they’d know the meaning of the word “torture” too. Regardless though, there wouldn’t be any legal issues, at least as far as even the Founders would be concerned (not that they could have even imagined such an inhuman type of person but still, such an action would have been in the true intent of the Founders and the Bill of Rights).
It’s not too late. We are starting to warm up to Saudi Arabia again. Ship em off there and dunk em all you want. Problem solved. At least legally speaking.
I think you just flew off the deep end into Polly Anna territory.
If you can’t torture them anymore just shoot ‘em on the spot over there then.
Here's a big flaw: the 2nd amendment isn't granting (i.e. creating) the right, but acknowledging an already extant right — it is the right for a group, or even an individual, to protect themselves (and families, and properties) from grievous harm… especially when those threatening such harm are agents of the government who are acting in unlawful [and unjust] manner. — remember that they had just fought a bloody civil war due to injustices being heaped up against them.
As the 2nd codifies a recognition of a preexisting right, do you really think it somehow doesn't apply to non-citizens? If so, can a non-citizen ever be found to be justified in a homicide, or is the justification dependent on citizenship?
Or, given the 7th Amendment if an illegal immigrant works for a certain amount of time for an agreed upon wage, does he lack standing when his wages are kept from him? (Note: the issue of him being illegally here is discrete from the matter of the employer's theft of his labor. Just because one is guilty does not mean the other is innocent.)
This is where we find our happy medium I’d say: the Constitution was written by Americans to protect US citizens from overreaching government. On US soil. Overseas it has no application.
I get what you are saying; it's half right — the constitution must be applicable overseas, otherwise what's to keep the government from taking you over there and violating the 4th/5th/6th amendments, stripping you of your wealth and sentencing you to die w/o Grand Jury presentment/indictment or trial? After all, you're not on US soil in that case.
I think you, and C. Edmund Wright are holding to the absurd notion that I'm saying that the Bill of rights applies to everyone, everywhere, worldwide — that's exactly not it; what I'm saying is this: it constrains our federal government (and, to some extent, state).
Prior to the 14th Amendment there wasn't really a notion of "US Citizen" as we see it today, you were a Citizen of a State and your ""US Citizenship" came by virtue of being a citizen of one of the States in the Union. — What we have now is an inversion: the servant has usurped the position of the master and now lords its power over them. (The 17th Amendment, by the way, broke Federalism by keeping the States from being [directly] represented in the Congress.)
“Contrived” my old can. So we will ‘find out” when it comes to YOUR loved ones possibly being held hostages huh?! LOL!! Yep, you damn well would, (as you should), torture the snot out of some dirt bag that you might have in your hands holding info from you.....info needed to free your loved ones. You liberal hypocrites are really something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.