LARK Program- political humor

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

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?

[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]

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]