KLC Lewis wrote:
wrote in message
...
)
Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct (though
doubtful) that the punishment must be *both* cruel and unusual to be
covered by the 8th amendment. "Torture" is illegal in the US, and in
international law. By definition, "torture" is cruel, and since it is
outlawed worldwide in international law and treaty, it cannot, by
definition be considered "usual", and therefore violates the 8th as you
interpret it. Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for a
crime.

You can make an argument about whether any given action *constitutes*
torture, but you cannot make a rational argument that there are
"acceptable forms of torture" within any legal framework.

Keith

It was not my intention to be correct. However, the previously-stated
argument was, as I recall, proferred by the Bush administration.

I was replying to Bruces' post, actually, not yours. I had assumed your
original comment was tongue-in-cheek. And you are certainly correct
about the Bush proffer; one of many such convenient departures from
reality and morality.

Keith