opa-opines.net

The question of whether the US should torture (enhanced interrogation) any “detainees” keeps bubbling. Some commentators insist there are two issues: Is torture legal, and does torture work to get us vital information.

I strongly disagree! There is only one question: Does the US believe that torture is the “right” thing to do. Do we believe a human – even an enemy – should have the “right” to NOT be tortured. Is there any possible justification for the “beacon of freedom”, the symbol of human rights, to ever stoop to inflicting pain and near death to another human just to make ourselves “safe”?

There is only one principle and it is a moral one. This nation was founded upon human rights. In our Declaration of independence we say “we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.” In the Constitution, in our “Bill of Rights”, we insist that each person has freedoms and should be protected from cruel punishments*. We say in the fifth amendment that we cannot lose our rights without “due process of law”.* Due process includes the right to not incriminate ourselves.

Does the Constitution limit these rights to American Citizens? No. The Constitution does not say that the rights are limited to citizens, nor should it. When our founders created this nation they saw it as an exception to the abusive countries of the rest of the world.

Do we want this nation to become like the countries that abuse people? I think not. Liberty such as we have in this country must be carefully protected. It was worth the sacrifices of the Wars we fought to ensure our rights. Those rights must not be surrendered now just to gain a little information.    

* Constitution of the United States

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So, Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire. Already some politicians are making picking a replacement into a political curcus. Personally I wonder how we can criticize a nominee that doesn’t yet exist.

We can, I believe, provide input to the Obama administration concerning the sort of person we prefer to see appointed to the highest court in our land. I have a few suggestions. First let us look at the Constitution.

The Constitution Article 2 Section2 details Presidential powers on this matter.

The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties . . . and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Note that the Constitution simply says that the President “shall appoint” Judges of the Supreme Court , “with the advice and consent of the Senate”, It does not mention any qualifications for that appointee.

Surprisingly to many people, it is not necessary for a nominee to be a judge or even a lawyer. I have researched numerous issues in law books and court decisions. We have had lawyers and judges for many years and I am not sure that they have made the best decisions. Many politicians complain that recent justices have written new law instead of judging matters on the Constitution and laws already on the books. We may avoid that by appointing someone other than a lawyer.

Read the constitution. It is not difficult to understand. For example the Constitution says that the power of the federal government is limited.

The Constitution Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to

the people.

Despite this very clear amendment, Justices of the Supreme Court have decided that their rulings, or a bill passed by Congress, are above the Constitution. How can they make that huge illogical leap? Maybe it is because they are lawyers. Few laymen would suggest that Congress, The President, or the Court have the privilege of changing our Constitution. One example makes the point. Since there is no mention in the Constitution of a right to privacy or a woman’s “right to choose”, how did the Supreme Court decide Roe v Wade? The tenth amendment clearly says that, since those “rights” are not mentioned in the Constitution, the “right to privacy” and a woman’s “right to choose” are reserved to the States or to the people. To a non-lawyer such as myself, the Supreme Court must ask for a Constitutional amendment or leave it alone.

So, who do we want nominated to the Court? We want a non lawyer who can read, and not imagine what is not there. We want a person with common sense. We need a person who cares about we the people. We want a person who knows that the Supreme Court is not a legislature. I think many such people exist, let us recommend some to the President.

It seems that every time I try to listen to a cable news channel I hear argument concerning whether President Obama should prosecute senior Bush Administration officials. During press briefings, news reporters even attempt to push Obama into saying he thinks they are guilty of violating US and international laws concerning torture. This is irritating.

A brief review of history suggests to me that Presidents do not tend to prosecute their predecessor . Historically congress has investigated presidents, for example Andrew Johnson. The Department of Justice has appointed special prosecutors, for example to investigate Nixon and Clinton.

I don’t think it is the President’s job to investigate or prosecute a former President. Further, I don’t want a sitting President to think he has such power. To me that kind of power reminds me too much of a monarchy.

A sitting President must focus upon the needs of the nation, and especially now, we need the President to try to lead concerning the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the looming entitlement mess. I think the President should not be sidetracked by political investigations.

Frankly, if it is necessary to prosecute a prior administration, I believe that congress should appoint an independent special prosecutor. There must be some attorneys who are independent people of principle, driven by the law itself, and not involved in political wars. Hopefully congress will pass a law mandating such an appointment. Then we can concentrate on moving the nation forward.

What do you think?