NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution is not well-developed. To begin with, which court(s) would have jurisdiction in this matter? Not all nations agree to use the International Court now, and the UN cannot force nations to submit to any specific jurisdiction.

Second, how would any court decision be enforced without violating national sovereignty? - Nations join the UN to work together, but joining the UN does not require a nation to give up sovereign rights. Would the UN attempt to use force to enforce a court decision?

Third, exactly what is the definition that the resoulution uses for "barbaric punishment"? Only one or two examples are listed, and there is no definition of exactly what the word "barbaric" is supposed to mean.

Furthermore, this proposal goes beyond the issue of "torture" and includes punishments within the resolution. At least, I would call for a separation of the issues within this resolution.

To conclude, we already have several measures on both of these issues. To interfere with other nations in this way is not justified at this time.

If a nation sees a very grave threat that might destroy the very foundations of its existence, then that nation may take any actions necessary, including torture and execution.

I agree in part with The 7 Habits, and urge you to vote against this resolution.

The main problem I see with this bill is the lack of definition of "torture."

What is torture? The infliction of physical pain? Then that would include several unmentioned factors: starvation, dehydration, etc.,

But I would argue that it is far worse to inflict pain psychologically, creating long lasting emotional and mental problems. Consider the realm of "Chinese torture" where water is dripped endlessly on one's forehead: drip...drip...drip...drip...drip...drip. Or where one is left in the dark, or kept in a small space with little room for movement.

And then we look at punishment. For, what is punishment but government inflicted torture?
--I myself believe that punishment is a necessary part of law and order--

I reject this resolution because it is far too vague.

however we must recognize that enforcement of this proposition may produce an unprecedented legal quagmire, and even result in dangerous criminals being pardoned on technicalities.

Should law enforcement officers bruise subjects while they resist confinement, or the subject even injures his or herself, to reside under threat of international censure and penalties along with facing the possibility that the criminal becomes magically unprosecutable are problems to which we must give serious consideration.

While the Dominion of Limbland will certainly agree to refrain from torture, as we always have, to vote in favor of this well-meaning proposition would require that clearer lines of definition and feasibility be drawn.

The problem with this kind of stuff is that it totally rejects the concept of sovereignty. This game relies upon UN membership to 'support' people during 'wars', thus artificially strengthening the need for people to be members.

You want to destroy all diversity in this game? Fine, simply program it so it is literally impossible to be a dictatorship. Don't offer it as an option. Don't go through the farce of allowing people to try to play out the fantasy, only to yank it out from under them with this voting nonsense.

Heck, I've only been playing this game for a couple of weeks, and already I can see the trend. Left leaning proposals win by overwhelming majorities. They don't even have to be properly written; as long as they espouse some kind of 'brotherhood of humanity' position, they will pass.

Why bother making individual nations, anyway? Let's all just abandon that concept and just be one big happy family, right? We'll forget the idea of 'nation states' and just be the UN.

What's that - don't like that idea? Well, you can't HAVE individual nations if you allow invasive laws like this to be forced down everyone's throats.

Is there some option somewhere to ignore UN resolutions? If not, WHY not?

This is not right we should be allowed to torture those who oppose us so dont ban torture really you cant survive without it so off with those who disagree with it.

In response to what Dryke said, you surrender quite a bit of your own personal sovereignty when you join the United Nations. Decisions of this body are binding upon your nation, and this is clearly stated whenever you make the decision whether or not to join. That's the risk you take whenever you sign up. If you want to be evil and carry out your own agenda without bothering with "this voting nonsense" then you'd probably be better off as a non-UN Member State.

On the other hand, I agree that many of the proposals which come before the body are simply voted through because they have a leftist slant. I've scanned through the proposals and I'm appalled at how poorly written the majority of them are, not to mention how ridiculous some of them are on a whole. The United Nations could use a bit of an overhaul, but more importantly it's members could take a harder look at the things they are voting on. Just because it's a good idea in theory doesn't mean it's a good idea in practice; furthermore, people should stop voting for resolutions written in some perverted & twisted form of English.


---
Rev. Dr. Hezekiah Giradoo
Prime Minister of the Federation of Giradoo

"Outside of the killings, Giradoo has one of the lowest crime rates in the region."

From: The Government of the Rogue Nation of Bad Old Europe - Department of Foreign Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We support the resolution despite its unclear formulation, for the following reasons:
1) Use of torture is an abuse against human dignity, which we consider sacred.
2) Information gathered through use of torture is known to be untrustworthy, even with use of the most sophisticated torture methods.
3) A well-funded and trained police force does not need to turn to torturing suspects/witnesses.

with kind respect, [name irrelevant]

Once again, I'm going to invoke the "Dictionary.com" standard with regards to UN resolutions.

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

And almost every resolution ever passed by the UN infringed on national sovereignty in some fashion.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

What if that torture could save the lives of many.

ex.
A child has been kidnapped. You are sure that you have captured the abductor. You know that the child has been buried in a box under ground with only enough air to survive for an hour. The only person that can tell you where the child is, is your "witness".

Change the details anyway you liked, but when do to stop resisting the urge to light the fools head on fire and put the fire out with ice picks.

The motion is too broad.

From: The Government of the Rogue Nation of Bad Old Europe - Department of Foreign Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We support the resolution despite its unclear formulation, for the following reasons:
1) Use of torture is an abuse against human dignity, which we consider sacred.
2) Information gathered through use of torture is known to be untrustworthy, even with use of the most sophisticated torture methods.
3) A well-funded and trained police force does not need to turn to torturing suspects/witnesses.

with kind respect, [name irrelevant]
I agree with Bad Old Europe that torture is nto reliable. Besdes now with all the information technology around its much easier to spy on people.

I am against this resolution for many of the same resons already mentiond. Mitarya is not a common practioner of toture, but when needed to seive information from terroris, kidnappers and abductors, it helps. We never use leathal or dehabitlating tortue, but just enough to pry the infromation. By canceling this, even untrained spys form other nations, could resist telling us information being we would be unable to harm them, lest invalidate our evidence.

Using torture as a method of interrogation will cause even the innocent to swear that they are guilty - just to escape the pain. So what is the use of that information?

But we only use it when we are very sure of the suspect's involment and guilt and only for a very large threat.

Torture freely all dissenters. Their lives or deaths are irrelevant, but you might get something useful in the process.

Information gained from spies and terrorists during times of military conflict isn't likely to be used in a court of law, if you catch my drift.

It seems odd to use the word "witnesses." I guess that means it's A-Okay to torture defendants all we want?

But we only use it when we are very sure of the suspect's involment and guilt and only for a very large threat.If you have enough evidence already to be sure of the suspect's guilt, then why would you consider forcing a testimony to be necessary?

I will first off say that if this goes through i will leave the UN.

This is ridiculious. There is no reason that one should not be able to torture in order to get information from there captive enemies.

This is a resolution that should be voted against.

I call for a stand in protest against this absurd issue.

It shouldn' even be an issue.

As an active member of the UN, I am calling on all members to vote against the current UN proposal to end torture!

We should all have the right to torture during interigations.

Wether you agree with it or not, it should be the individual country which decides on this. Remember the death penalty can also be viewed as torture!

I for one will not abide by this UN rule if it is passed and I call on all UN members to vote against this proposal. Its about time we put these UN fat cats back in their place!!!

I will first off say that if this goes through i will leave the UN.

This is ridiculious. There is no reason that one should not be able to torture in order to get information from there captive enemies.

This is a resolution that should be voted against.

I call for a stand in protest against this absurd issue.

It shouldn' even be an issue.

Basic human rights, maybe? :roll:

I would like to point out that barbaric does not equal torture. If one were to look at the root of the word 'bar-bar' you find that it was the warcry of the ancient Persian Army. Specifically the word is rooted from the Persian invasion of Greece during the Persian Wars. Their society was highly advanced and at the time controlled the largest and first empire to be seen on the planet. My nation is rooted in the same culture and traditions of the Persian Empire, as can be seen with the word Dahaka, rooted from the name of a dragon in Persian myth, Azhi Dahaka. Any use of the word 'barbaric' is a cultural slap against the face of any nation rooted in the proud traditions of Persia and shows that in fact the cultural superiority goes to those who would be labled 'barbarians' for the simple fact that we are the ones well versed in others culture while the lablers are the culturally ignorant. Sophistication lies with the knowledgeable. Lastly, we do not support torture, but no where does the definition of the resolution connotate nor limit the definition of 'barbaric' to torture, and thus any of my nation's methods of punishments, my nation being those who cry 'BAR BAR BAR', are declared illegal by this resolution. I demand the right to defend my nation's ability to punish those who have done wrong as to be a deterent to others and to prevent those persons from doing further harm.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

This resolution needs lots more definition.

Would it mean that you could not make prisoners listen to 12 hours of Michael Jackson videos without bringing down the wrath of the UN? (Or Mozart if you're not into it.)

Personally we in Fleeb get the best results with our long fingernails and a particularly rough old blackboard left over from when the National Chairman of the Board was in 2nd grade. Opens 'em up every time!

Excuse me, but does this mean that the way we eat flies out here in the marsh would qualify as torture? I mean, a wing here, a leg there, dismemberment is just part of a good evening meal. Or are you human chauvinists just keeping your silly UN rules for primates (! specist term if I ever heard one!!!) Pretty soon you'll want us to kill the flies before we swallow 'em. Fly rights, I never! Thwipp. Thwipp. Ribbit. Theeewip!

We use canings and the stocks in our otherwise tolerant and easygoing nation because it sets a vivid example for the public, raises money for us on pay-per-view, and as an alternative to incarceration prevents jail overcrowding, inhumane conditions, and overtime for guards.

Barbarity can be a humane and helpful thing.

The Kingdom of Skullzz shall not tolerate this foolish resolution. I have tolerated the Labor Unions resolution, which caused massive damage to my economy, and the banning of landmines, which significantly decreased my military power. This new resolution goes TOO FAR. I will not stand for the infidel UN telling me what I can and cannot do to my own citizens. Therefore, should this resolution pass, I will leave the UN, and another nation will replace me as regional delegate.

Is tickling an unusual torture? I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO TICKLE MY FOES!

I once read an interesting article in I believe it was newsweek a couple years ago that argued for using torture in some extreme cases. Now the author claimed that torture was perfectly acceptable if it is going to save lives. He uses an example of a nuclear bomb in a major urban area, the terrorist has the only information on how to diffuse the bomb. The author argues this would be a perfect time to use torture. A great quote he says is that "torture is barbaric, probably, but mass murder is more barbaric." Since the resolution really isn't all that clear in this respect, I voted against it.

I once read an interesting article in I believe it was newsweek a couple years ago that argued for using torture in some extreme cases. Now the author claimed that torture was perfectly acceptable if it is going to save lives. He uses an example of a nuclear bomb in a major urban area, the terrorist has the only information on how to diffuse the bomb. The author argues this would be a perfect time to use torture. A great quote he says is that "torture is barbaric, probably, but mass murder is more barbaric." Since the resolution really isn't all that clear in this respect, I voted against it.


Your position against the banning of torture is commendable.

You know it is interesting when people start talking. You finally realize how moronic people are. You are telling me the there will be people who would be tortured after being caught by the police after lets just say a fail bank robbery. Come on people in the military there is training on the are of making someone talk. It is allowed under the terms of the Geneva Convention and not only America a follower of this principle follows this idea. Also what about the other countries not in the United nations they don't have to follow this idea which means that if any of our diplomatic citizens are captured following a meeting with an unallied country that a terrorist group would be able to capture and DO AS THEY FEEL to this person with no regard to the idea that we follow. Stating this that would mean that if a terrorist action would happen in our country that we would have to treat them fairly and not do the techniques taught in the military to retrieve information on where the Kingpin of that terrorist organization simply because it is unjust??? Malcolm X said an important phrase about freedom "BY ANY MEANS NESSESSARY”. We should be allowed to do anything our minds can imagine to retrieve information on a subject who has attacked our nation instead of just taking a alternate route. Yes, true removing torture is less barbaric but it takes more time and in that time your country could be attacked. We as the united nations should work together to stamp out terrorist in a highly efficient, proven method and if that mean we have to break a few bones then it should be done.

Furthermore barbaric nature changes over time. In the 12th century if a knight upset his king, the king was given the right to behead that knight with his own sword. Today the president of a country just can shoot a solider with his own gun just because the president is upset with him if this keeps up a pillow fight will soon become barbaric. Where will it end? I think it sould end right here. Vote No on this resolution.

Not only is this resolution daft in what it calls for but the implacations of it could do if passed is great. This is useless for who would impose the fine on the country that uses torture. Then along with that a life is now just worth a fine that is imposed after death. If anything this resolution needs to be redone to have stronger powers for it to have an use anywhere. Though don't do that for what it wants to do now it is too strong. The UN was set up to help the nations of this server come to terms with their problems. It was not created to invade the soverginty of the member nations and impose the will of other nations on lesser ones. The banning of landmine I was and is against though it had world implacations. This on the other hand deals with the internal running of the nation. It interfers with the way I want to get testomoy and how I wish to run my court system. You, the people wishing to pass this, want to come in and tell me how to run my nation. This is something I will not have. :!: I ask that all nations vote against this resolution not because they disagree with it but because it seeks to curb our nations independence. :!:

I will first off say that if this goes through i will leave the UN.

This is ridiculious. There is no reason that one should not be able to torture in order to get information from there captive enemies.

This is a resolution that should be voted against.

I call for a stand in protest against this absurd issue.

It shouldn' even be an issue.

Basic human rights, maybe? :roll:

That's besides the point. Some people are so stupid, so inept, or so cruel that THEY DO NOT DESERVE HUMAN RIGHTS.

I would torture Hitler. Would you?

In response to what Dryke said, you surrender quite a bit of your own personal sovereignty when you join the United Nations. Decisions of this body are binding upon your nation, and this is clearly stated whenever you make the decision whether or not to join. That's the risk you take whenever you sign up. If you want to be evil and carry out your own agenda without bothering with "this voting nonsense" then you'd probably be better off as a non-UN Member State.

Except that you MUST be a UN member to properly support your region. If it were not for that fact, then I *would* resign.

Furthermore, the 'real' UN has quite a few 'evil' members in it. They don't give up any true sovereignty to be part of it.

Therefore - you can't say this is 'realistic', nor can you say that the game mechanics truly support being a non-member.

Well, it didn't occur to me that you should be a UN Member to properly support your region. :) I concede on that one. As for the evil members of the real U.N. they do give up a portion of their sovereignty in that they agree to accept the decisions of the Security Council. And when you refuse to comply with the will of the international community, then bad things happen to you, like sanctions and armed conflict. Sanctions are mostly a slap on the wrist, but in today's world the looming threat of armed conflict seems to be getting more and more real (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq).

Anyway, back to the NationStates U.N... I see your point, and I guess you are pretty much screwed unless you're not that gung-ho about supporting your region. :cry:

---
Rev. Dr. Hezekiah Giradoo
Prime Minister of the Federation of Giradoo

"Outside of the killings, Giradoo has one of the lowest crime rates in the region."

What would the immediate effects of this resolution passing be? For example, that stupid labor union resolution passed the other week and it put a major dent in many of our economies. What would the passing of this torture resolution do to our civil rights and political freedoms? Also, would it affect our economies?

Im not sure if anyone has noticed this. But why the H.E.L.L. are we banning something that, according to blurb at the top, doesnt exist. literally the first hing they say is about how it cam to their attention about no1 torturing and so that we are basically morally driven to banning it. If it's not broken- y fix it?

hey look most of you are new i understand but this is a need to do we must torture to get information :twisted: