LARK Program- political humor

[Nephythys]

THE NEW LARK PROGRAM

A person wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive taken during the Afghanistan war. Below is a copy of the response.

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for your recent letter criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.

You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.

Your detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome this character flaw. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. He i! s also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless you feel that this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him. He has been known to show violenttendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he considers appropriate, but I'm sure that over time they will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka. Just remind them that it is all part of respecting his culture and his religious beliefs.

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you inform us of the proper way to do our job. Take good care of Ahmed and good luck!

Cordially,
Don Rumsfeld



This e-mail is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor, or irrational religious beliefs. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, this e-mail does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this e-mail, although the pit bull next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, I always find ignoring the Constitution a hillarious topic to joke about.

You call it political "humor" but it's not humor when that's the literal argument people use to justify blatant violations of Constitutional protections and international treaty. It's not a joke, it's a sad fact.

[SacTown Chronic]

Funny stuff (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/7herbert.html?n=top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%2 0Op)

This is all being done in the name of fighting terror. But the best evidence seems to show that many of the people rounded up and dumped without formal charges into Guantánamo had nothing to do with terror. They just happened to be unfortunate enough to get caught in one of Uncle Sam's depressingly indiscriminate sweeps. Which is what happened to Shafiq Rasul, who was released from Guantánamo about a year ago. His story is instructive, and has not been told widely enough.

Mr. Rasul was one of three young men, all friends, from the British town of Tipton who were among thousands of people seized in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. They had been there, he said, to distribute food and medical supplies to impoverished Afghans.

The three were interviewed soon after their release by Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been in the forefront of efforts to secure legal representation for Guantánamo detainees.

Under extreme duress at Guantánamo, including hundreds of hours of interrogation and long periods of isolation, the three men confessed to having been in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. They also said they were among a number of men who could be seen in a videotape of Osama bin Laden. The tape had been made in August 2000.

For the better part of two years, Mr. Rasul and his friends, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, had denied involvement in any terror activity whatsoever. But Mr. Rasul said they eventually succumbed to long months of physical and psychological abuse. Mr. Rasul had been held in isolation for several weeks (his second sustained period of isolation) when an interrogator showed him the video of bin Laden. He said she told him: "I've put detainees here in isolation for 12 months and eventually they've broken. You might as well admit it now."

"I could not bear another day of isolation, let alone the prospect of another year," said Mr. Rasul. He confessed.

The three men, all British citizens, were saved by British intelligence officials, who proved that they had been in England when the video was shot, and during the time they were supposed to have been in Al Qaeda training camps. All three were returned to England, where they were released from custody.

[SacTown Chronic]

I wipe my ass with your constitution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/opinion/4herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%2 0Op)

In one hearing that led up to Monday's decision, Judge Green attempted to see how broadly the government viewed its power to hold detainees. Administration lawyers told her, in response to a hypothetical question, that they believed the president would even have the right to lock up "a little old lady from Switzerland" for the duration of the war on terror if she had written checks to a charity that she believed helped orphans, but that actually was a front for Al Qaeda.


Fvcking hillarious!

[Nephythys]

I was not aware that foreign enemy combatants or suspects had the same Constitutional Rights as us as US citizens....gee, no, they don't.

[sleepyjeff]

LOL Nephy. It was funny and I only wish the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of US citizens were defended as zealously as the so called international rights of people who would have us all dead.

Making fun of Charleton Heston, an American Hero, seems to be ok to the same crowd who can't seem to tolerate any laughter at a terrorists expense :rolleyes:

[Scrooge McSam]

I was not aware that foreign enemy combatants or suspects had the same Constitutional Rights as us as US citizens....gee, no, they don't.

You're absolutely right. They do not have the rights guaranteed to US citizens by the constitution.

They DO have other rights as are outlined in the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signator.

One of those being freedom from torture. I'll look you up a link to the US involvement in that if you want, but I'm pretty sure you've already seen the stories about that.

They are also guaranteed not to be transferred to another country that uses torture. We've (excuse me, this administration) failed to hold to our agreement in that regard as well.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4246089.stm

We'll be hearing a lot more about this in the coming days, I fear.

[Scrooge McSam]

...so called international rights of people who would have us all dead.

So called, eh? That little nugget is just too precious... Thanks for the laugh.

If you're willing to believe that every person rounded up in our little neighborhood raids over in Iraq (where EVERY male in an area is rounded up and brought in for questioning and possible incarceration) is a terrorist, perhaps it's time for you to go back to sleep.

[SacTown Chronic]

LOL Nephy. It was funny and I only wish the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of US citizens were defended as zealously as the so called international rights of people who would have us all dead.

Let's first determine if we (excuse me, this administration) are detaining the right people. Then we'll talk about what to do with them.

[Scrooge McSam]

Making fun of Charleton Heston, an American Hero, seems to be ok to the same crowd who can't seem to tolerate any laughter at a terrorists expense :rolleyes:

No, I don't get a lot of laughter out of indiscriminate killing. I don't laugh when we do it to them and I don't laugh when they do it to us. I guess I'm just funny that way.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I personally believe that the US has a responsibility to a higher ideal than even international law, namely our own code of conduct as described by our own law. The Declaration of Independence says, "All men are created equal", not "All citizens". To say that these rights which we declared inalienable to all men are null just because you aren't a citizen is beyond me, especially as we trapse around the world touting our superior method of government only to ignore some of its more basic principles.

[Ghoulish Delight]

LOL Nephy. It was funny and I only wish the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of US citizens were defended as zealously as the so called international rights of people who would have us all dead.
Show me a way in which international law can be interpreted to mean it's okay to torture people and I'll agree. Sorry, but the 2nd amendmant argument hinges on the rather important phrase, "A well regulated militia", interpretation of which has hardly been agreed upon. So until I see something in the Geneva Convention that even vaguely can be taken to mean it's okay to stack naked prisoners or smear fake menstrual blood on their faces, this isn't a debate, it's flat out wrong.

[sleepyjeff]

So called, eh? That little nugget is just too precious... Thanks for the laugh.

If you're willing to believe that every person rounded up in our little neighborhood raids over in Iraq (where EVERY male in an area is rounded up and brought in for questioning and possible incarceration) is a terrorist, perhaps it's time for you to go back to sleep.

.............. remember why they are being rounded up. Is it to humiliate the population? Is it to show the world how strong we are?..........NO! It would be much easier, and ironically enough much more in accord with so called international law, to just level those neighborhoods with a fuel air bomb. They are being rounded up at our peril, in order to save their lives.

Frankly, I don't believe that American liberals care at all about international law.....it was a previous President that started the practice of transporting prisoners to other countries to be interrogated without so much as a ahem.

[Scrooge McSam]

Show me a way in which international law can be interpreted to mean it's okay to torture people and I'll agree. Sorry, but the 2nd amendmant argument hinges on the rather important phrase, "A well regulated militia", interpretation of which has hardly been agreed upon. So until I see something in the Geneva Convention that even vaguely can be taken to mean it's okay to stack naked prisoners or smear fake menstrual blood on their faces, this isn't a debate, it's flat out wrong.
What about sodomizing them with flashlights? What's your reading on that?

Can we burn em with cigars? No? Damn

[sleepyjeff]

Show me a way in which international law can be interpreted to mean it's okay to torture people and I'll agree. Sorry, but the 2nd amendmant argument hinges on the rather important phrase, "A well regulated militia", interpretation of which has hardly been agreed upon. So until I see something in the Geneva Convention that even vaguely can be taken to mean it's okay to stack naked prisoners or smear fake menstrual blood on their faces, this isn't a debate, it's flat out wrong.

So you agree that the second amendment and its cheif defender are open to ridicule and humiliation but laughing at terrorists(who are not covered by any Geneva Convention that I am aware of) are off limits?

[Ghoulish Delight]

So you agree that the second amendment and its cheif defender are open to ridicule and humiliation but laughing at terrorists(who are not covered by any Geneva Convention that I am aware of) are off limits?You may notice that the "joke" in the OP was not ridiculing terrorists but rather people who dont' support torture. Secondly, if it were a joke, it would be one thing. But as I said, it's not a joke at all, it truly is the argument given by people. "It's okay to torture the prisoners because they're really really bad." Nope, I don't see the humor in that.

[Scrooge McSam]

...just level those neighborhoods with a fuel air bomb.
Nice. I'll just let your words speak for themselves. They say volumes more about that kind of thinking than I ever could.

[sleepyjeff]

You may notice that the "joke" in the OP was not ridiculing terrorists but rather people who dont' support torture. Secondly, if it were a joke, it would be one thing. But as I said, it's not a joke at all, it truly is the argument given by people. "It's okay to torture the prisoners because they're really really bad." Nope, I don't see the humor in that.

Well, I don't think it is ok to torture prisoners because they're really really bad either. Where I disagree is the defintion of torture and how far we should go to obtain information that may save thousands if not millions of lives.

If we had one of those 9-11 pilots in custody on 9-10, how far would be too far in making him talk(assuming we knew something was up, but not where or when)?

[Ghoulish Delight]

.............. remember why they are being rounded up. Is it to humiliate the population? Is it to show the world how strong we are?...They are being rounded up at our peril, in order to save their lives.
Sorry, I will not buy the internment camp argument.

[sleepyjeff]

Nice. I'll just let your words speak for themselves. They say volumes more about that kind of thinking than I ever could.

Really not fair, since I did not say we should do this. I said it would be more in accord with international law then the "sweeps"....and I am right, it would be.

:rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

Sorry, I will not buy the internment camp argument.

Then what do you think they are being rounded up for?

[SacTown Chronic]

But as I said, it's not a joke at all, it truly is the argument given by people. "It's okay to torture the prisoners because they're really really bad." Nope, I don't see the humor in that.

And to really smear shiit on the American flag, it seems that many think it's okay to detain and torture those who are not terrorists.

Using 9/11 as an excuse to disregard basic human deceny makes me sick. Doing it while hiding behind an American flag makes me angry.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Look, it's not like liberals love people that are "sociopathic and extremely violent" or that "view females as a subhuman form of property". I sure as hell don't. But I don't support torture, or detaining anyone we damn well please, no matter how horrible I view their culture.

Conservatives just don't get this, I guess.

[SacTown Chronic]

Where I disagree is the defintion of torture and how far we should go to obtain information that may save thousands if not millions of lives.

Who says we'd know what to do with the information? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=2&u=/ap/sept_11_faa)

[sleepyjeff]

Who says we'd know what to do with the information? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=2&u=/ap/sept_11_faa)

Good point.

[Scrooge McSam]

Really not fair, since I did not say we should do this. I said it would be more in accord with international law then the "sweeps"....and I am right, it would be.

:rolleyes:
OK

In the interest of being fair...

I do not believe it is proper to level an entire neighborhood, killing everyone that lives there, in order to stop a couple of terrorists that may, or may not, be there, especially since we now know that whatever terrorists are there are due to our bungling of operations in Afghanistan.

Now... That's what I think. I hope that's clear.

What do YOU think?

[sleepyjeff]

OK

In the interest of being fair...

I do not believe it is proper to level an entire neighborhood, killing everyone that lives there, in order to stop a couple of terrorists that may, or may not, be there, especially since we now know that whatever terrorists are there are due to our bungling of operations in Afghanistan.

Now... That's what I think. I hope that's clear.

What do YOU think?

I think we should do what we are doing(which we are doing in order to AVOID what you describe above).........

[Nephythys]

You may notice that the "joke" in the OP was not ridiculing terrorists but rather people who dont' support torture. Secondly, if it were a joke, it would be one thing. But as I said, it's not a joke at all, it truly is the argument given by people. "It's okay to torture the prisoners because they're really really bad." Nope, I don't see the humor in that.

Correction- the OP does not even mention torture. It mocks those who are more concerned about the "rights and comforts" of terrorists. It does not condone torture, and by proxy, when I posted it, nor did I. (you will note this "letter" refers to the war in Afghanistan-over two years ago)

And I certainly "get it", it was an extreme lampooning- which I note seems to be fine when conservatives are the target.

[scaeagles]

A couple of side points.

Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they are not signatories of it. They do not abide by the Geneva convention, and do not have any basis of claim to the protections proscribed therein. In fact, I believe that terrorists are specifically excluded as being protected by the Geneva convention, as only uniformed soldiers are. This is why spies could legally be shot during times of war. That being said.....

Certain things are not acceptable. I do not condone torture in any way. However, I do not necessarily regard certain interrogation techniques as torture. Sleep deprivation and the like.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Look, whatever it's referring to, and who the Geneva Convention covers, is beyond any of this. It comes down to the very principals that this country was founded on being ignored for "the good of the country." And to me, that undermines "the good of the country" more than anything. I don't care who is attacking who, what methods they are using, what international law says, or what information we may or may not obtain. If this country doesn't believe enough in it's basic underpinnings to stand by them no matter what, and not abandon them because we're scared, then what the hell is the point? And those underpinnings say you do not hold people without charge, you do not inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and people are innocent until proven guilty. Those are blatantly being ignored, and whether it's towards our own citizens or anyone else, it shows a lack of faith in what should be making this the greatest country in the world.

Then what do you think they are being rounded up for? You misunderstand me. What I meant was, I don't buy internment as a valid reason for detaining people. "We're holding you for your own protection" is a load of crap and it's what lead to the Japanese internement during WWII. It's inhumane. We're not talking evacuation. Evacuation involves the Red Cross and refugee camps. No, we're talking arests and detainment.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And, for the record, the Afghan war is on-going, and the prisoners taken during that war are still prisoners at Guantanamo, so there was no way to distinguish what incident it's referring to.

But I still stand by the fact that it's not a "joke" or a "lampoon" when all it presents are the verbatim arguments in favor of ignoring human rights violations.

[Scrooge McSam]

Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they are not signatories of it.

Good one. Thanks for pointing that out. I did misspeak when referring to the Geneva Convention, when I should have been referring to the Convention Against Torture.

The Convention Against Torture, to which we are also a signatory, was softened up in Article 1 at the insistence of the US government.

According to Article 1 of the Convention, "torture" means "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession . . . when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Under the U.S. understanding of Article 1, reflected also in the federal statute, "in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and . . . mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the sense or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality." The U.S. understanding also says that in Article 1 of the Convention, "the term 'acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity."

The United States also attached a reservation to Article 16 of the Convention, which imposes an obligation on each state party to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The U.S. reservation limits that obligation to acts that would be cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Now then... Was the torture portrayed in the pictures we've all seen by now intentionally inflicted?

Do these acts constitute cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution?

Well?

Do they?

[sleepyjeff]

Now then... Was the torture portrayed in the pictures we've all seen by now intentionally inflicted?

Well?

Do they?

Yes they do, but who here was defending these particular acts?

[Scrooge McSam]

No one that I'm aware of. Those comments are a response to Scaeagles and his rightly pointing out my misuse of the Geneva Convention reference.

[sleepyjeff]

:cool: