It is an interesting question

Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago to Government
5 comments | Share | Flag

Where is the intersection of natural rights here?

I agree with Scalia in that the Constitution is silent on the matter, as it deals with the rights of Citizens - not foreigners. The bigger question is this: if you know that a foreign assailant intends to perpetrate an attack on the Citizens of the United States, how far is one able to go to stop that attack?
SOURCE URL: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2014/12/13/scalia-constitution-silent-on-torture/?subscriber=1


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by frodo_b 9 years, 3 months ago
    The Constitution is not silent on the matter. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention "citizen" once. It only refers to people. Which makes sense because all the Bill of Rights does is enshrine into law some of the most important human rights.

    As for your bigger question... I don't know. I feel like you're bringing up a hypothetical, extreme scenario to justify the routine use of torture. How many of the people who the CIA tortured knew where the nuclear bomb was hidden in LA?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago
      Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution was known to only cover citizens, so I'll disagree with you there. I'll also point out that this has nothing to do with criminal prosecution and sentencing, which is the gist of the Eighth Amendment, so that one doesn't apply imo.

      And I haven't justified it, only asked the question: how far is one allowed to go under the rules of natural rights? Does one sacrifice all claim to those rights when one initiates the means of a massive violation of others' rights? Does one who engages in attempted mass murder retain any claim on their rights after so egregiously violating the responsibilities that go with them?

      It very well may be an absurd example, but that is how many logical theories are tested: by proposing the absurd to see if the moral extends to cover it. If the answer is no, we question the universality of the moral. If the answer is yes, we conclude by affirming the moral.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago
    This is nonsense. Either all humans have the same individual natural rights or none do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago
      I think that is the starting point, yes. But rights are only as good as the responsibility to uphold them. Those rights are forfeit once you choose to violate another's rights. To claim that somehow one retains all rights even while impinging on the freedom of others completely undermines the principle of justice and rights in the first place.

      The question still remains: once someone has forfeited their rights by implementing a plan to kill or otherwise assault the freedoms of others, what is allowed to attempt to prevent the fruition of the plan?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo