Someone said they believed only American citizens have the right not to be tortured is this common in the US?
474469
Well, if you read the text of most (most) of the protections guaranteed by the US Constitution, it says "no person"  rather than "no citizen".... which kind of begs the question how some conservative strict constructionalists can argue that "person" really only means "citizen"...\n\nBut I've heard a lot of people say that they don't think non-US citizens should have rights. What's even more frightening is that a lot of people I've talked to think that even US citizens shouldn't have any constitutional protections if they are SUSPECTED of being involved in terrorist activities. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept is totally out of the window. At least, according to the Bush administration's current policies (see US v. Padilla).\n\nI'm just stocking up on popcorn (and canned goods) and waiting for the fireworks to start.
191922
Our constitution forbids your rights to infringe on others rights.  We all have a right to persue Happiness here in the Good Ole USA.  If you take your life, although you may not agree,  Many will suffer great pain.  It is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and it never solves the problem only spreads it.\n\nEnjoy Life, Today , Tomorrow, and Beyond
1149193
Not only does every American have the right but an obligation to be outraged by the tortured & beheaded servicemen. They are not protecting anything torturing & beheading our soldiers - have you forgotten the treatment of soldiers have international laws & rules. We do not torture & behead their soldiers. Shame on you for having no patriotism. I am amazed than the same poooooor Katrina victims people say leave an entire country to the torture of Al Queda. Are you suppose to be caring compassionate people & we are the war lovers? I do not think writing off an entire country including woman & children is compassionate. At least, we are willing to stay until we can safely leave their country & their children & women are somewhat safe. Al Queda proved once again how vicious they are. We got blasted for a few renegades taking naked pictures & you will defend beheadings. Good question! No I am not President Bush, I am the mother of a United States  Army Ranger.
523228
It should be obvious, considering the fact that the U.S. govt. often distorts the truth to shift blame or to rationalize actions such as "interrogation". According to the United Nations view on what defines "torture", the U.S. has clearly crossed the threshold between interrogation and torture. Examples: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and even during the Vietnam War.
80537
All of the above are right. In more detail, the US Supreme Court held that because the state (aka: police) can be coercive and overwhelming, it is too easy for them to pressure someone into a confession. This could potentially violate both the person's due process rights and their right to not say anything that would incriminate them (both 5th Amendment rights).\n\nTherefore, to balance the scales of justice, and to preserve the right to an attorney, people in custodial interrogation must be allowed to speak with an attorney if they ask. This ensures that the person being held by the police has someone there to help them and support them, and thus to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected. \n\nThe Court in Miranda v. Arizona found that because people may not know their rights, police are required to notify them of their rights before questioning, and must get a waiver of those rights before they can proceed.
734397
You're not aware of what you've given up. Privacy rights,  habeus corpus, right to an attorney, right to see all the evidence against you, the list goes on. Just because you don't think you'll be personally affected, does not mean Americans haven't lost these rights in some circumstances. Ever heard of a trend? There's a trend toward taking away people's rights in more and more circumstances. \n\nAnd have you given up these freedoms for any reason? There are more terrorists due to Bush foreign policy than there were before 9-11
949305
It's called the right to fair trial and it's enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. \n\nAnd your argument doesn't wash. There is no death penalty in Western European countries, yet they all have much lower crime rates - both violent and non-violent.
922560
... since when does the U.S. care about other nation's human rights...\n\nunless they are looking for an excuse to attack someone...
1074375
You know, I am never shocked at what one human will do to another, even without just cause.  Torture is in my book an effective means of gaining information, but completely inhumane. Any national of any country technically is forbidden to engage in torture during wartime; as far as I understand the Geneva Convetions. But who is actually going to refrain when they believe their cause for doing so is justified? As for the question of should anyone have the right to engage in torture, I'd have to say level the playing field and let a war be a war again, stop trying to civilize the most uncivilized act possible!
238349
Ordinary, law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about with the Patriot Act... for example, if you don't make phone calls to Afghanistan to discuss ways to kill Americans from a US phone, you have nothing to worry about!  Who are the people complaining about this... are they criminals?  I don't understand the fear of those who say this is an attack on civil liberties... the opposite is true.  The ACLU defends terrorists in Guantanamo in the interest of civil liberties... so they can attack us again -and if they get their way, maybe we will all live under Sharia law in the US... with no civil liberties... don't people get it?  Freedom isn't free... it has to be guarded.  The Patriot Act GUARDS the freedom of regular, law-abiding citizens... if that scares some, I question what they are doing that they would worry that the government would actually stumble upon something dealing with them while tracking terrorist movements and conversations!!!!  I for one am not concerned as I am more interested in my children's future than that of the terrorists or criminals.\n\nLet me just ask one question of those who hate the Act... Have you in the last five years since it was passed, had your personal liberties directly threatened or negated by this Act?  Or is it just a fad to disagree?
890765
The Constitution provides protection for people, even criminals in that there should be no "cruel and unsusual form of punishment." \n\nI believe in this wholeheartedly. It is in accordance with my Christian beliefs. Let us not become monsters ourselves when we deal with monsters.
793141
Under current US law....\n\nThe prison is still open. Prisoners are held in US custody. They are denied access to the courts, in violation of the 1st Amendment right to petition. They are denied habeus corpus, in violation of Article I Section 9. They are often denied counsel, in violation of the 6th Amendment.\n\nThey cannot be tortured. However, the government interrogators get to define what the word "torture" means. \n\nThey can be tried in an irregular court, in violation of 5th Amendment Due Process requirements. Their coerced and compelled confessions (obtained during 'non-torture interrogation') can be used against them, in violation of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause.\n\nInformation obtained from out-of-court sources can be used to prosecute them, without any chance to cross examine, in violation of 6th Amendment requirements. They do not have the right to call witnesses in their defense, in violation of 6th Amendment requirements.\n\nAs to what the punishments and interrogation matters are, those are now classified. Nobody is allowed to speak of them, and the prisoners (even those released as not-guilty) are not allowed to file lawsuits challenging what was done to them.\n\nIn short, under the laws passed by the recent Congress, the government is not required to follow the Constitution. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said they do. \n\nAnd somehow, we still claim that we have the moral highground, and that the rule of law still matters.....
794186
Yes I am concerned, but Congress rolled over and it is legal to torture....which I think makes us all the more unsafer. Think of a soldier captured and getting tortured.
606324
No.  That right is reserved for citizens and legal residents.\n\nThey do not have "civil rights."  They have "human rights."  This is an important distinction.  Also, to infer that the Constitution is bestowing rights on illegals is like assuming that illegals have the right to bear arms and vote.  "The people" in the Constitution very specifically means "the citizens" of the USA.\n\nWikipedia\nCivil Rights\nCivil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"—civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim ought to belong to all people.
139515
Yes because being an American and/or in America guarantees the "right" to free speech.\n\nSee how cool that is, we may not agree with your assertion, but we'll defend your right to say it!! God Bless America!
933692
That would be an interesting question to ask the citizens of the world. Based on our current foreign policy, I'd bet most people would say that Americans are, particularly since we now openly approve of torture. The Iraqis are seen as citizens of an occupied country and we are seen as their occupiers. And in spite of the failure of the war, our leaders refuse to change tactics or even admit wrongdoing.
615026
This is what the Washington Post says:\n\nA U.N. anti-torture panel today issued a rebuke of Bush administration counter-terrorism policies today, calling for the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility in Cuba and a halt to the transfer of suspected terrorists to countries where they may face torture.\n\n...\n\nThe U.N. committee, made up of nine experts, urged the Bush administration to establish a federal law criminalizing torture and to eliminate some of its most controversial interrogation techniques, including sexual humiliation, the use of dogs to induce fear and "water boarding," a practice that involves simulating the sensation of near-drowning.