undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCamperBob210y ago0 comments

The memos didn't provide de iure indemnity. There is no constitutional basis, in fact the proposition that a memo can supersede the Constitution is idiotic on its face.

Yes, and that's what I meant by "let the courts sort it out later." The Constitution's not much help either way, being full of imprecise, hand-waving language and vague terms like "cruel and unusual." It was anticipated by the Constitution's authors that it would be of use only to a moral government.

Nevertheless, since there is no legal basis, there is nothing preventing the next government from prosecuting them.

I wonder if that's ever happened in the US? Does anyone know?

0 comments

rdancer10y ago

I would disagree. The Constitution is a bulwark against tyranny. The US have successfully prosecuted waterboarding in the past.

It usually only happens when the rule of law is suspended and then resumed. You're a young country, so maybe it hasn't happened before. Robert H. Jackson was an American, though ;-)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

rdancer10y ago

I would disagree. The Constitution is a bulwark against tyranny. The US have successfully prosecuted waterboarding in the past.

It usually only happens when the rule of law is suspended and then resumed. You're a young country, so maybe it hasn't happened before. Robert H. Jackson was an American, though ;-)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse