Sen. Ted Cruz: 'Torture is Wrong. Unambiguously. Period. The End.'

We violate international law when we torture people. Torture is illegal under international law, and I'm not defending it. However, the Bill of Rights has never applied to non U.S citizens. No court has ever ruled that way. They have rights under international law, but they are not subject to the U.S Constitution. All people should have natural rights, and we should speak out in favor of freedom around the world. But the protections of our Constitution specifically have always applied to U.S citizens. Violations of international law can be handled by international courts and tribunals.

Its one thing for the US government to "allow" other nations to violate either the constitution or international law. You are right that its not our job. But the US goverment doesn't have a right to violate the constitution, whether dealing with citizens or not.
 
Good. I know a lot of people have a problem with Ted Cruz, but credit when he's right. I wonder how the "conservative" base is reacting since it appears they are in favor of torture (at least the few websites I visit).
 
But the US goverment doesn't have a right to violate the constitution, whether dealing with citizens or not.

I know, but I just don't think they're violating the Constitution since I believe the Constitution is meant to apply to U.S citizens. They're violating international law and in some cases U.S law, but in my opinion they aren't violating the Constitution unless they torture a U.S citizen. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm in no way defending the torture program and what went on. I'm just making a technical argument that I believe the Constitution was meant to apply to U.S citizens.
 
I know, but I just don't think they're violating the Constitution since I believe the Constitution is meant to apply to U.S citizens. They're violating international law and in some cases U.S law, but in my opinion they aren't violating the Constitution unless they torture a U.S citizen. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm in no way defending the torture program and what went on. I'm just making a technical argument that I believe the Constitution was meant to apply to U.S citizens.

what code do you think should be followed with respect to foreigners then? Surely we can't just turn them into dog food, I know you don't support doing that. But there has to be some rule, and I tend to think following our own laws is wise. I don't think anyone who tortures has upheld his oath.
 
what code do you think should be followed with respect to foreigners then? Surely we can't just turn them into dog food.

We should follow international law as well as our own laws. International law bans torture, and at least as of right now U.S law bans torture as well.
 
Glad to hear him say that. It lends a load of credibility to our side.


LOL

Unfortunately... its at best a wash for his "credibility".

lyte-datalab-torture-2.png
 
Our own soldiers were tortured in WWII in Asia, and in every war since. One might argue that we are merely catching up with the rest of the world.

Speaking of WWII

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii.html

How Torture Helped Win WWII
Fretting over waterboarding, writes British historian Andrew Roberts, obscures the fact that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have saved thousands of lives in every war. Plus, read Michael Korda's review of Roberts' book Masters and Commanders: How Churchill, Roosevelt, Alanbrooke and Marshall Won the War in the West, 1941-45.

A slight air of unreality has permeated the debate over “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the war against terror, with historians embarrassedly studying their toecaps over the issue. For the truth is that there has not been a war in history in which torture has not been employed in some form or another, and sometimes to excellent effect. When troops need information about enemy capabilities and intentions—and they usually need it fast—moral and ethical conventions (especially the one signed in Geneva in 1929) have repeatedly been ignored in the bid to save lives.

In the conflict generally regarded today as the most ethical in history, World War II, enhanced interrogation techniques were regularly used by the Allies, and senior politicians knew it perfectly well, just as we now discover that Nancy Pelosi did in the early stages of the war against terror. The very success of the D-Day landings themselves can largely be put down to the enhanced interrogation techniques that were visited upon several of the 19 Nazi agents who were infiltrated into Great Britain and “turned” by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) between 1939 and 1945. Operation Fortitude—the deception plan that fooled the Germans into stationing 450,000 Wehrmacht troops 130 miles north of the Normandy beaches—entirely depended upon German intelligence (the Abwehr) believing that the real attack was going to take place at the Pas de Calais instead. The reason that Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, was utterly convinced of this, was because every single one of his 19 agents, who he did not know had been turned, told him so.
 
Although he did criticize publishing the report. I understand the argument that it puts us in danger, [...]

I don't understand it at all. It's nothing but a mealy-mouthed dodge. What "puts us in danger" in this case are the acts of torture that have been perpetrated by the US government - not any belated "official" acknowledgement of those acts. If it were not for the former, the latter would simply not be an issue.
 
I don't understand it at all. It's nothing but a mealy-mouthed dodge. What "puts us in danger" in this case are the acts of torture that have been perpetrated by the US government - not any belated "official" acknowledgement of those acts. If it were not for the former, the latter would simply not be an issue.

It's typical Team Red. Backing up their team mates. It's not the report that will cause blowback. It's the acts of torture that will cause it. Blame the messenger mentality to support their team.
 
I just don't think they're violating the Constitution since I believe the Constitution is meant to apply to U.S citizens.

The US Constitution is meant to apply to the US government.

It is a grave error to imagine that the US Constitution "grants" rights to anyone (whether they be US citizens or not). It does no such thing. The Constitution grants expressly enumerated powers and specified priveleges to the US federal government. That is all that it does. In the course of doing so, it acknowledges and defers to the prior existence of rights (most notably, those explicitly addressed in the Bill of Rights). And as the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear, those rights are to be understood as being possessed by all people everywhere - "all men ... are endowed by their Creator [i.e., NOT by the US Constitution or the US government] with certain inalienable rights ..."

Nowhere does the US Constitution give ANY authority to the US government to "ignore" or otherwise refuse to respect the pre-ordained rights of ANY persons - regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. Therefore, the US government has NO rightful authority to do so. The absurd notion that the US Constitution "gives" rights to people - let alone that it "gives" those rights ONLY to US citizens - is one of the chief reasons we're in the mess we're in today ...
 
The US Constitution is meant to apply to the US government.

It is a grave error to imagine that the US Constitution "grants" rights to anyone (whether they be US citizens or not). It does no such thing. The Constitution grants expressly enumerated powers and specified priveleges to the US federal government. That is all that it does. In the course of doing so, it acknowledges and defers to the prior existence of rights (most notably, those explicitly addressed in the Bill of Rights). And as the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear, those rights are to be understood as being possessed by all people everywhere - "all men ... are endowed by their Creator [i.e., NOT by the US Constitution or the US government] with certain inalienable rights ..."

Nowhere does the US Constitution give ANY authority to the US government to "ignore" or otherwise refuse to respect the pre-ordained rights of ANY persons - regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. Therefore, the US government has NO rightful authority to do so. The absurd notion that the US Constitution "gives" rights to people - let alone that it "gives" those rights ONLY to US citizens - is one of the chief reasons we're in the mess we're in today ...

THANK YOU!

THIS is one of the least understood principals of freedom in today's world.
 
The US Constitution is meant to apply to the US government.

It is a grave error to imagine that the US Constitution "grants" rights to anyone (whether they be US citizens or not). It does no such thing. The Constitution grants expressly enumerated powers and specified priveleges to the US federal government. That is all that it does. In the course of doing so, it acknowledges and defers to the prior existence of rights (most notably, those explicitly addressed in the Bill of Rights). And as the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear, those rights are to be understood as being possessed by all people everywhere - "all men ... are endowed by their Creator [i.e., NOT by the US Constitution or the US government] with certain inalienable rights ..."

Nowhere does the US Constitution give ANY authority to the US government to "ignore" or otherwise refuse to respect the pre-ordained rights of ANY persons - regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. Therefore, the US government has NO rightful authority to do so. The absurd notion that the US Constitution "gives" rights to people - let alone that it "gives" those rights ONLY to US citizens - is one of the chief reasons we're in the mess we're in today ...
I approve of this post!
 
Back
Top