Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (215261)	1/6/2002 8:40:57 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

5th Amendment: I wouldn't even attempt to defend the violation of this amendment you cited. This sort of thing has always struck me as a legalistic end run around it. 6th Amendment: Much trickier example. I'd support this one, although justifying that legally is problematic. One solution of course is for the courts to support the Constitution as written and force Congress to amend it for this case. only "cruel and unusual punishment". If it isn't cruel. it isn't torture. For example, one could simply argue that methods which some might characterize as "torture" are not a punishment at all (the person hasn't even been convicted of anything), but rather an aggressive interrogation technique justified in the interest of preventing future crimes. So do you think your local cops should be allowed to haul you in for "questioning" and beat the s**t out of you until they either killed you or got you to confess to whatever they wanted? That's just "an aggressive interrogation technique justified in the interest of preventing future crimes." That sort of thing was done by English kings (why else would you need The Rack?). The boys who wrote the Constitution didn't think it was a good idea.