Washington Post: Government Considering Torturing Terror Susp ects

[Elizabeth Dale]

At 02:58 PM 10/21/01 -0700, you wrote:

>         But to return to the Constitution, is there any caselaw that
> bears on either the beating-the-terrorist question or the question of
> threatening his family -- and carrying out the threat if need be?

What happened to the usual prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment?
(Even assuming that post-WWII international law was inapplicable.) Are we
assuming it is only punishment if it follows a trial conducted within the
constraints of due process? If so, that seems an interesting assumption to
make, given that the hypothetical -- and some current policy -- seems to
assume a complete absence of any other constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

It also seems to be assuming that the person picked up and tortured was in
fact somehow involved in terrorism. And that, I thought, was something we
did not assume until it, or any other crime, was proved in a court of law.

This argument seems to be putting a lot of carts before some pretty
imaginary horses.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20011021/75826144/attachment.htm