Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure what "sudden rush" you're talking about. Lawmakers have been trying to legislate curbs on abuse since the first scandals broke. The difference now is that they have massive GOP support for it. Why not ask your party why they suddenly had a change of heart? Or is that part of the (spooky voice) Liberal Conspiracy (/spooky voice)?
Because of rhetoric? It's a hijack of the issue, and they're stuck in a position in which they are voting for or against torture. At least that's how it get's simplified down to in the media.
Here's the
text of the amendment.
Note the wording.
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. and
In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. This does not *only* prevent torture. It requires that all prisoners, regardless of status, be treated with the same rights as US citizens in civilian custody within the US. That's the problem though. Whether you like it or not, the same rules regarding interrogation and treatment of prisoners does not apply in all cases. Changing the status level of every single prisoner is a far broader effect then just "banning torture". But that's exactly how it's referred to.
Do you want me to post link after link of news articles that simply say it's a "ban against torture"? Or should I restrict the list only to those who accuse Bush (Cheney really) of being "for" torture because he's opposed to this amendment?
You do know the logical fallacy involved here right? But that does not stop every single media report on this subject to refer to it as a ban on torture, leading the next obvious conclusion to be anyone opposed to it must be for torture, right?
But you know that's not right because you are a student of logic and would never fall for such a poor argument...