At the recent New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate, The Donald was asked if he would approve waterboarding of suspects who might (or might not) have some knowledge of terrorist plots against America. His response was that not only would he approve waterboarding, he would approve "a lot more than that" to secure the homeland. When pressed in various forums after the debate, The Donald made clear that there are no limits to the extremes to which he would go if such extreme measures might serve to defeat terrorism. In point of fact, he refused to rule out any form of torture which might (or might not) produce useful information to protect the USA. {The weight of the evidence is that such techniques produce little useful information, whether they occurred during the Inquisition in the Dark Ages, or during the Third Reich, or during the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, or anywhere else either. But, beyond that truth, some things are just plain wrong; Americans are better than that.}
One small problem for The Donald, though: Every President must take an Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We have all heard, and been moved by, those noble words emanating from our founders. And the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution, part of our Bill of Right itself, states as follows:
Bails, Fines, and Punishments: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The clause in bold type must be upheld by any and all American Presidents.
It has already been determined that waterboarding, which is the intentional infliction of pain and suffering by a simulated drowning of a suspect or other person, is an illegal practice which violates all humanitarian standards. It is essentially a form of torture -- but as The Donald made clear on his Sunday interviews on Meet the Press and Face the Nation the day after the New Hampshire debate, when asked by the moderators, he endorses the use of torture to attempt to get information from suspected terrorists. Thus, there is a prima facie case that The Donald has made a pre-emptive strike on the presidential oath of office, by refusing to honor that oath in advance of ever conceivably having to take it, were he to ever be elected President of the United States of America (God forbid!)
Of course, nobody should be surprised at The Donald's willingness to violate the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and most likely any other statutes, laws, rules, regulations, standards, and so on which might conceivably displease him. After all, as he has already made clear, he believes that he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York and shoot someone, and not lose even a single vote". Apparently, The Donald believes that his misguided followers have no more moral sense than he does. The more outrageous his statements, the more his popularity seems to grow in certain sectors. As another Republican candidate stated recently, in a Trump presidency we might arise one morning to find that he had "nuked Denmark" for some unknown reason. If that was intended as a joke, it is not at all funny.
Responsible conduct is not a hallmark of The Donald's words or acts. His preoccupation with certain parts of both the male and female anatomy which are not usually the focus of presidential campaigns has become legendary. His abysmal lack of knowledge of international affairs is only exceeded by his wrongheaded assertions to the contrary. His simplistic views of domestic affairs lead to the endorsement of lower wages for working Americans, much lower taxes on the wealthy, and the removal of virtually all regulations and controls on the corporate sector. All of that counterproductive and un-American drivel he is welcome to spout. What he is not welcome to advocate, however, is the violation of Constitutional provisions such as its Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments. By making a preemptive strike on any president's Oath of Office, he has disqualified himself from ever serving in that High Office. But, should there ever be a need for a Torturer-in-Chief, The Donald might be eminently qualified to serve.
1
1
1
