~>  DD> And that is true. It is NOT unconstitutional. But, it is
illegal ("we
~>  DD> have a law against torture" - Scalia).
 
~> There's the rub.  Remember, W's justice department ruled that the torture 
~> was legal.  

Once again you show an inability to read and understand.  There was no DOJ
finding that "torture was legal."  Exactly the opposite.  There were a
series of memos based on the belief that torture was ILLEGAL, and that
therefore all interrogation had to stop short of being torture!

Those memos have been out for some time now, and you have had nothing to
say about them except for the outrageous claim that the people who wrote
them somehow broke the law simply by writing down their opinions!  Maybe
you should read the First Amendment to see why THAT claim was so
outrageous.  And maybe you should read the memos to see that  they say
exactly the OPPOSITE of what you IMAGINED they said!

~>  DD> "PUNISHMENT - Some pain or penalty warranted by law,
inflicted on a
~>  DD> person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the
~>  DD> omission of the performance of an act required by law, by the judgment
~>  DD> and command of some lawful court."
 
~> Therefore, "enhanced interrogation" is legal?  We may as
well throw out 
~> Miranda why we are at it.

Add the Fifth Amendment to your reading list, to find out how absurd THAT
sentence was.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a