LARK Program- political humor

[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]

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?

[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]