Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Let's look at it this way:

The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either
cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not
unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like.

Winning hearts and minds, one at a time.

I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

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

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.

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

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:05:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Let's look at it this way:

The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either
cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not
unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like.

Winning hearts and minds, one at a time.

I suggest that the meaning is cruel punishments and also unusual
punishments.
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

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


As the term, which was first used in England in 1689, was originally
used as a ban for punishments that were considered cruel or unusual.
Examples - flogging around the fleet which actually constituted being
flogged to death, being torn apart by either the rack or wheel,
hanging, drawing and quartering, and so on.

I believe that the first U.S. definition of the term was
In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), when the Supreme Court
commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning
alive, or disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment
regardless of the crime.

The reference to torture, in U.S. law was, I believe, added at some
later date although I do not have a specific date.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:

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


As the term, which was first used in England in 1689, was originally
used as a ban for punishments that were considered cruel or unusual.
Examples - flogging around the fleet which actually constituted being
flogged to death, being torn apart by either the rack or wheel,
hanging, drawing and quartering, and so on.

I believe that the first U.S. definition of the term was
In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), when the Supreme Court
commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning
alive, or disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment
regardless of the crime.

The reference to torture, in U.S. law was, I believe, added at some
later date although I do not have a specific date.


There's no denying that the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" is
open to disagreement, as is the range of actions that constitute
"torture". The point, however, is that "torture", through national and
international law, and convention, is illegal. The statement that "some
forms of *torture* are acceptable" obviates any discussion of what
actions constitutes "torture". Any action that qualifies, under
currently accepted definitions, as "torture" is illegal. To be
"acceptable", an action must be defended as being "not-torture", not
'well, it's torture, but it's OK torture'.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your earlier premise re. the hypocrisy
much of the non-US world now see in our pronouncements about the human
rights abuses of other countries. Hopefully that will change somewhat
in the next several years.

Keith

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, said:

Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried for
a crime.

I asked earlier which law school you received a degree from.

And speaking of using misdirection in lieu of substantive debate...

Face it Dave, the strawman here is of your construction. The quibbling
over what comprises "torture" is of virtually *NO* importance when the
base issue of whether torture is allowable is being questioned.

So many windmills to tilt at, so many strawmen to burn, you're such a
busy guy!

Keith

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:39:24 -0700, said:

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:34 -0700, said:

Not to mention violating due process (14th amendment) in
that the "torture" is applied to individuals who have not been tried
for
a crime.

I asked earlier which law school you received a degree from.

And speaking of using misdirection in lieu of substantive debate...

Since you obviously haven't a clue, let me give you a hint. Start with the
right amendment.

You could start with the 5th, but you'd end with the 14th anyway.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:14:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

You could start with the 5th, but you'd end with the 14th anyway.

Here's a hint for another clueless sea lawyer.

We are talking about actions by the federal government.

Personally, I was talking about all government agencies, both State and
Federal. In any event, when it comes to "Due Process," it doesn't pay to
leave out any Constitutional protection, as one never knows which one the
Court will agree with.

"Clueless sea lawyer." Funny stuff. You make that up yourself?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:08:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"Clueless sea lawyer." Funny stuff. You make that up yourself?

The phrase "sea lawyer" is a common one in the Navy. It refers to someone
who freely offers a great deal of legal advice without knowing squat about
the subject.

Duh.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:14:12 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

You could start with the 5th, but you'd end with the 14th anyway.

Here's a hint for another clueless sea lawyer.

We are talking about actions by the federal government.


Dave, I don't know why you can't just come out and say what you mean
rather than being so obtuse.

So far the best I've seen from you has been limited to one word
rejoinders, like "No" and "wrong", with a few ad hominems thrown in,
followed by accusing others of failing to proffer a cogent argument, all
the while failing to offer the same.

And this from a man claiming to have written a definitive tract on
cogent argumentation.....

Cheers
Martin