NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider this-

A terrorist has a bomb in a metropolitan area with 2 million people. You have him in custody. He will not speak, but if you don't get information from him, people will die.

Is it not worth torturing a man to save lives? Cowes doesn't make as habit of torturing people - we're firmly against it usually. But if we also firmly believe that bureaucracy and diplomacy has no place in these sorts of situations. Cowes would violate the UN resolution to save lives.

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

The people of Ensendia tend to agree with Cowes on this point. If the expedience and potential harms of the given situation outwiegh the interests of the person being tortured, then why not? Agreed, it is an egregous breach of the said person's rights, but there must come a time in which pragmatism outweighs blind idealism.

Well said, Ensendia!

Based on an opinion poll run in Cowes, terrorism is currently the number one concern for our nation's citizens, so we can not adopt this resolution that could hurt our war on terror!

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

a few things cowes, first how do you know he wont lie?

also if you have enough time for torture to work couldn't you just as well find the bomb or evacuate the area?

what if you have the wrong terrorist? You torture him eventually he'll start lying to make the torture stop.

And most zealots that are classified as "terrorists" would become suicidal for their cause anyway, so the torture woudl be pointless. Check the historical effectiveness of tortured confessions in the world. Works great when innocent non-combatants are targeted, but a trained soldier rarely ever 'breaks'.

Where does it end?
Soon, you will be torturing any man you suspect may have information of murder.
You will torture POW's.
Soon, the need for torture will fall from death to simple petty theft.
Once you begin torturing...where do we draw the line?

Where does it end?
Soon, you will be torturing any man you suspect may have information of murder.
You will torture POW's.
Soon, the need for torture will fall from death to simple petty theft.
Once you begin torturing...where do we draw the line?

i have to completly agree. thats how everything goes. once it starts it usually gets worse.

Countries like Cowes and Whittier seem to think there are terrorists everywhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Unfortunately, as Cowes has taken a very active stance against terrorism, there really are terrorists everywhere for us.

A weak nation, like many of these, would not understand how important it is that we use every method possible to crush terrorism.

Where does it end?
Soon, you will be torturing any man you suspect may have information of murder.
You will torture POW's.
Soon, the need for torture will fall from death to simple petty theft.
Once you begin torturing...where do we draw the line?

This is insane. Cowes will never use torture to coerce criminals. That's silly.

Based on our past experience, tortured terrorists are most likely to 'break'. We will have no choice but to resign from the UN if this resolution passes, at the first sign that we may need to use torture.

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

From: The Government of the Rogue Nation of Bad Old Europe - Department of Foreign Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We wish to make a statement regarding the following:
Unfortunately, as Cowes has taken a very active stance against terrorism, there really are terrorists everywhere for us.
If you put the suspects under torture, you will find out that practically everyone you suspect is a terrorist.
Exceptions will be a very small number of terrorists strongly convinced of their cause.
with kind respect, [name irrelevant]

Obviously, this would be based on actual intelligence, rather than the suspicion of one man

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

is an injectable drug that only creates intense pain for the "patient"
considered cruel or torture?

As a weapon against terror, torture only harms the torturer. From a policy perspective it is self defeating and plays into the hand of the terrorists, whose only goal is to force a government to bend to their will.

Actual intelligence would never resort to pain because it is an unreliable source of good information. The resolution as it is currently written does not prevent the use of the "prisoner's dilema" and other more effective psychological techniques from being use.

Consider this-

A terrorist has a bomb in a metropolitan area with 2 million people. You have him in custody. He will not speak, but if you don't get information from him, people will die.

Is it not worth torturing a man to save lives? Cowes doesn't make as habit of torturing people - we're firmly against it usually. But if we also firmly believe that bureaucracy and diplomacy has no place in these sorts of situations. Cowes would violate the UN resolution to save lives.

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

The ends do NOT justify the means. This is what laws are for.

When he was asked to approve an illegal wiretap, US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis adamantly refused saying that “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution.” He continues later on, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect our liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

When the Constitution is finally dead and buried, good sir, would you really like to see its tombstone read, "we did it for the terrorists"?

The Kingdom of Skullzz firmly supports torture under any circumstances, not just to prevent terrorism. As a matter of fact, my nation views torture as a beautiful art form, and it is not at all considered barbaric. My citizens do not share the UN's foolish hopes and dreams of a Utopian society, and it is for this reason that The Kingdom of Skullzz shall soon resign as UN Delegate to the Bowels of Hell.

Just out of curiosity, has the UN defined torture?

"Hinders"? I think it promotes terrorism. "He broke a bone. You must be torturing him."

Even if you go to question him and tries to escape, you cannot injure him. Then that goes a step further where you can harm criminals. Then it will be that the act of arresting them is "torture," Where will it end?

"Hinders"? I think it promotes terrorism. "He broke a bone. You must be torturing him."

Even if you go to question him and tries to escape, you cannot injure him. Then that goes a step further where you can harm criminals. Then it will be that the act of arresting them is "torture," Where will it end?

When the sons of Pomerania lie dead and buried beneath the ashes and ruins of the Empire... WHEN THE TRAITOROUS INFIDELS ARE PURGED FROM THE EARTH! When mendacity becomes apparent, and, um, okay...

Anyways, while I wholeheartedly support the spirit of this resolution, definitional problems compel me to vote in the negation. Especially worrisome is the word "brusing," which could easily occur during arrests without any malice on the part of the police. Blinding and breaking bones I would agree to, but 'bruising' has some implications that I don't like...

Does that include emotional scars?

Does that include emotional scars?

Emotional scars are the mark of a professional torture artist. Amateur work fades with the physical scars. A true professionals work is never forgotten.

Twy-Sunrats Aplauds the comments by the leader of The Global Market!
How can a nation condon other nations that perform monstrosties to human beings when they themselves perform some form of monstrous act! If you torture people for one reason,someone else shall torture people for a diffrent reason.
Plus when a person is tortured they shall reach a point where tehy shall tell you anything just to make it stop and not necessarily the truth, becouse if you are willing to torture prehaps you will kill? and if you kill then what is the point in telling the truth that could put your friends, allies and cause in risk?
What if a terrorist supporting nation kidnapped a random tourist from your nation and then tortured him to make him confess he was a terrorist sent by your government? That is just as reliable as your "terrorists" "information" when obtained via torture. A confession in anything but a truly repentant individual is not worth a bean, it is only reliable in the most insignificant number of cases (and reliabillity cannot be measured with modern methods due to the irregularity of a tortured individuals biological systems) . Good detective work and intelligence are the only workable solutions.
Torture is a tool for fear and suppression, most suited to enforcing control over a reluctant populace not a weapon against zealots.

As to the Oppressed Possums statement, it is called justifiable action. If a criminal or suspected criminalis injured or killed whilst escaping it depends, was he armed? did he fall and brake his arm? did you brake his arm to teach him not to do it again?
All of this would be decided in a seperate trial (if the law believed a trial was necessary), this is due process, this is law, it is what seperates a responsible civilised nation from tyranny!

This is the official view point of Twy-Sunrats all evidence submitted from the victims of torture shall not be entertained by our nation.

Chairman Donovan
USST

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. :!:

The ends do NOT justify the means. This is what laws are for.

When he was asked to approve an illegal wiretap, US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis adamantly refused saying that ?If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means?to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal?would bring terrible retribution.? He continues later on, ?Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect our liberty when the Government?s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.?

When the Constitution is finally dead and buried, good sir, would you really like to see its tombstone read, "we did it for the terrorists"?

The ends do justify the means when the ends are so much more valuable than the means.

Laws have two main purposes - to promote the common good of citizens and to keep order. I would break every international, national and regional law there is to save lives and help keep people living happily. And this would NOT cause a state of anarchy - laws would be preserved, and would still apply. We would still enforce them. It's hypocritical, but it's worth it.

Cowes will not let people die as martyrs to bureaucracy!!

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

When the Constitution is finally dead and buried, good sir, would you really like to see its tombstone read, "we did it for the terrorists"?

The UN has a constitution?

There's an NBC weapon set to go off at some arbitrary time (say two days) in some city, somewhere. A good interrogation (sans the torture) takes five days. Evacuating every major city would take three days and cause massive panic. You have the man who set the bomb in place but he's covered his tracks too well to backtrack to the bomb in less than 50 hours. You won't find the bomb in time to defuse it unless you get REALLY LUCKY.

The terrorist in custody is nobody. He can walk free for all you care, he's just a triggerman, and no information you get from him will lead you to the head terrorist.

You can torture him and get the information and then the case gets thrown out of court, but you find the bomb.

Or, you can do it the clean way and find out where the bomb was after it goes off.

What do you do?

Make sure you are the one hiding the bomb

Exactly my point, St Georges Isles.

Greetings:

Even for those states that abhor the use of torture in interrogations (which, I can assure you, includes the RCO), this resolution is bad law. By not defining torture, and by giving such broad hints as to what "torture" is, basic interrogation policies might be called "torture" under this measure.

As we have stated elsewhere, a detective just trying to maintain order during an interrogation (by forcing a witness/suspect to sit down or stay in one place), if s/he should bruise the tender skin of the suspect/witness, would be guilty of "torture" under this bill. All testimony would be tossed out of court, and the state would be fined by the UN for such an "evil" action.

The RCO does not allow torture, and finds the practice barbaric and uncivilized. We applaud the intention behind this resolution. But it is too vague, too unclear, and too easily abused to be thrust upon the member nations.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

This bil is an outrage! If my government is not allowed to torture people, how can I find out who the traitors and dissidents are? This Bill will only make it easier for peope to disobey the government!
-Jureel Dartan, President-for-Life

Security or individual rights and privacy? An age old question.

The Cowes government more often than not finds violating privacy and certain rights the lesser of the two evils, as standing by and letting security be comprimised is a very evil thing to do.

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

This not an issue of security against individual rights but rather what justification is there to impose a moratorium on an action that is ambiguously defined. Moreover, since no one side is right or wrong it is not in the best interest of the whole to ban an action outright especially when considering the possible benefits that action may have. Further, if the action is banned then a global proliferation of spies and spy technology swill erupt as there is no way to punish the actors in spy networks. Essentially this bill would ban a self defense mechanism each nation should decide on whether or not to use itself. By making the decision for each country we are arrogantly assuming we know the correct answer when there is probably no correct answer. Let it be and if your country has a moral qualm with torture(as mine does) do not institute it!

Does that include emotional scars?

Emotional scars are the mark of a professional torture artist. Amateur work fades with the physical scars. A true professionals work is never forgotten.

I know this All to well.This is why Jaru opposes it..

We of Chumba strongly disagree with the use of torture, it is a barbaric, and a primative way of gaining information. A good Interrogator can gain enough information through the use of mental Interrogation as well as physical. And to state that it hinders the war on terror, is ridiculous at best.

Spokesman for The Empire of Chumba.