A Response Concerning Waterboarding

This article is in response to the post entitled "The A.C.L.U., a/k/a the US Department of Treason!".  In this post, a quote said in part,

Bush did the patriotic thing.  He ordered Mohammad waterboarded and he quickly gave up information that stopped at least two terrorist attacks that would have killed thousand [sic] of Americans.

 I must respectfully disagree.  As the above video shows, Erich "Mancow" Muller, a conservative radio talkshow host admitted that waterboarding is torture after having gone through it himself.  He had volunteered to be waterboarded intending to prove that it was NOT in fact torture.  You can watch the entire thing here.

The 8th Amendment says,

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Any intellectually honest person should be able to see that "cruel and unusual punishment" is the same thing as torture.  There is nothing in this amendment or anything else in the Constitution which limits the scope of this prohibition on torture.  (It goes without saying that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply the Federal government only.)  There is a reason why the Framers of the Bill of Rights chose to add this to our Constitution.  The reason is that the People demanded it!

And I don't believe for a minute that any valuable information was actually obtained from these waterboarding incidents.  I don't generally believe claims made by our government and our Founding Fathers taught us to be suspicious of any government.  The information supposedly obtained from this torture could already have been known or the whole thing could have been a hoax.  Governments naturally tend to want to expand their powers beyond Constitutional constraints in order have more leverage over the People, to prevent us from being truly free.  Whatever happened to relying on God for our protection?  Even if valuable information was obtained from this torture, do you really want to cast aside the Constitution so easily, and thus set a precedent for future constitutional violations, ones which next time could be perpetrated against YOU?

Barack Obama is Not for Civil Liberties, part 2

One of the things United States has been historically known for throughout its history is its longstanding record of going the extra mile to ensure that innocent parties are not wrongfully convicted or forced to undergo a long and drawn out trial (which can be just as bad as a conviction). In the bill of Rights, five out of the first ten Amendments (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th) are for the purpose of placing limitations on the prosecution of the accused. I guess now our good reputation may be gone forever.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug

Notice in the 5th, it says “No person”, not “No citizen”. So there is not an exception to this amendment in the case that someone is from a different country. The exception “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service" obviously applies to treason cases, not “enemy combatants”. It is understood that a person can be held temporarily until the indictment is served—“to answer for” means to be given a sentence, but the trial must take place "speedily".

These guys like Obama and Bush think that they are above the Constitution and that they fool people with their silver tongues. The constitutional manner of bringing defendants through the usual justice system has worked throughout the history of America. Why change it now? Is it because of the fear of terrorism? It is because whenever a corrupt politician has an opportunity to grab more power, he always does so. And as I pointed out in part 1 and in this piece on Janet Napolitano’s “Rightwing Extremism” Policy, the chickens have now come home to roost. Obama is using extra-constitutional executive powers to persecute ordinary American citizens, not just these terrorists. And has anyone ever thought it odd that Gitmo is in a COMMUNIST COUNTRY?