NationStates Jolt Archive


VETO THE TORTURE BILL!

Communist Rule
07-12-2003, 19:28
Veto the torture bill. A Nation must survive. A nation must know what its enemies know. A method is needed to extract this information.
07-12-2003, 19:34
I agree totally, if torture cannot be used in interrogation, why would a person want to talk? It makes perfect sense. If someone is interrogating you and they don't do anything if you don't talk, why talk? On the other hand if you're going to loose an arm or a leg if you don't talk, you'll probably talk to keep that arm or leg.
Communist Rule
07-12-2003, 19:35
This bill completely rules out interrogation! If a spy knows he cannot be harmed, then he will not talk. If murder is considered barbaric, it falls under this bill. IT BASICALLY SENDS CAUGHT SPIES PACKING WITH A PAT ON THE REAR END!
07-12-2003, 19:40
07-12-2003, 19:40
I most heavily agree, Communist Rule. What is foolish about this bill is that it, among other things does not define torture thoroughly. It gives examples, but torture could be considered one boy twisting another's arm to extract necessary information from him. It is a perfectly legitimate process.
I think it is plausible to use torture for the purpose of extracting what may be otherwise vital information. The only way for the US to extract information from al-Qaeda captives is to torture them. What other reason do they have to admit where other terrorist cells are than for the torture to end?
07-12-2003, 19:41
I most heavily agree, Communist Rule. What is foolish about this bill is that it, among other things does not define torture thoroughly. It gives examples, but torture could be considered one boy twisting another's arm to extract necessary information from him. It is a perfectly legitimate process.
I think it is plausible to use torture for the purpose of extracting what may be otherwise vital information. The only way for the US to extract information from al-Qaeda captives is to torture them. What other reason do they have to admit where other terrorist cells are than for the torture to end?
07-12-2003, 19:41
I most heavily agree, Communist Rule. What is foolish about this bill is that it, among other things does not define torture thoroughly. It gives examples, but torture could be considered one boy twisting another's arm to extract necessary information from him. It is a perfectly legitimate process.
I think it is plausible to use torture for the purpose of extracting what may be otherwise vital information. The only way for the US to extract information from al-Qaeda captives is to torture them. What other reason do they have to admit where other terrorist cells are than for the torture to end?
07-12-2003, 19:41
I most heavily agree, Communist Rule. What is foolish about this bill is that it, among other things does not define torture thoroughly. It gives examples, but torture could be considered one boy twisting another's arm to extract necessary information from him. It is a perfectly legitimate process.
I think it is plausible to use torture for the purpose of extracting what may be otherwise vital information. The only way for the US to extract information from al-Qaeda captives is to torture them. What other reason do they have to admit where other terrorist cells are than for the torture to end?
07-12-2003, 19:41
I most heavily agree, Communist Rule. What is foolish about this bill is that it, among other things does not define torture thoroughly. It gives examples, but torture could be considered one boy twisting another's arm to extract necessary information from him. It is a perfectly legitimate process.
I think it is plausible to use torture for the purpose of extracting what may be otherwise vital information. The only way for the US to extract information from al-Qaeda captives is to torture them. What other reason do they have to admit where other terrorist cells are than for the torture to end?
07-12-2003, 19:41
I most heavily agree, Communist Rule. What is foolish about this bill is that it, among other things does not define torture thoroughly. It gives examples, but torture could be considered one boy twisting another's arm to extract necessary information from him. It is a perfectly legitimate process.
I think it is plausible to use torture for the purpose of extracting what may be otherwise vital information. The only way for the US to extract information from al-Qaeda captives is to torture them. What other reason do they have to admit where other terrorist cells are than for the torture to end?
Communist Rule
07-12-2003, 19:47
This bill completely rules out interrogation! If a spy knows he cannot be harmed, then he will not talk. If murder is considered barbaric, it falls under this bill. IT BASICALLY SENDS CAUGHT SPIES PACKING WITH A PAT ON THE REAR END!
Newcomers to the post: This explains the whole negative side of the bill....THE FACT IS, THERE IS NO POSITIVE SIDE EITHER!
07-12-2003, 19:54
The fact of the matter is that the United Nations is exceeding its mandate by attempting to ban torture. If the UN bans torture simply because it is immoral, then there is nothing from stopping them from banning dictatorships or the death penalty. Every leader should be able to decide if torture is a concept they wish to condone, just as they can with the death penalty or capitalism.
07-12-2003, 19:55
The fact of the matter is that the United Nations is exceeding its mandate by attempting to ban torture. If the UN bans torture simply because it is immoral, then there is nothing from stopping them from banning dictatorships or the death penalty. Every leader should be able to decide if torture is a concept they wish to condone, just as they can with the death penalty or capitalism.
07-12-2003, 19:55
How do you delete posts? I accidentally posted 5 times instead of one.
God the Indifferent
07-12-2003, 20:30
First of all, torture is hardly a reliable method of extracting information. When you torture someone, they'll tell you anything you want to know, whether it's true or not.
Secondly, the United Nations is an organiztion which probably (well ideally, at least) best represents mankind as a whole. I know it's hard for you democratic types to admit, but maybe we should be legislating against immorality. I know it means a drop in extravagant lifestyles, but too bad. The United Nations needs more power, and needs to take a more active role in forcing people to act right, because they just don't know what's good for themselves.
Heian-Edo
07-12-2003, 20:37
As GTI has pointed out,when tortured,you're more likely to lie than to give the truth.
Inane Rhetoric
07-12-2003, 20:42
I would like to know first, what will constitute torture?It seems rather arbitrary to ban something when the parameters of what and what isn't torture have not been established. Second,how will the U.N. enforce the ban,and who will pay for it? It seems to me that most rational nations and their leaders self police themselves.The U.N. proposes to be a world watchdog,when in fact,a lot of the nations that are members openly and blatantly go against the laws and rules passed by the U.N. Lastly,will the U.N. share it's intelligence with it's member nations, so that interogation isn't needed any longer to gain information? This a very weighty issue and should thought long and hard on before rushing to pass it.
07-12-2003, 20:44
I hate it when the UN passes resolutions like this. People need to realize that making more humane ways of killing people isn't going to solve any problems. People need to realize that if a hostile nation is spying on them, it can be considered an act of war. They need to realize that if a nation wants information, they're going to get it in whatever way they can. Let's say you are currently at war with a nation. You are spying on that nation. That nation is a UN member. Their authorities catch you. You then refuse to talk. No one can do anything about that. If you have left a bomb somewhere, and they ask you if you've commited any terrorist acts, you don't have to answer. Why would anyone ever catch spies if they can't do anything to them? Why not pass a resolution, saying that we have to get all spies a first class hotel once we catch them? This kind of crap in the UN is sickening.
Heian-Edo
07-12-2003, 20:52
Apparations,
First,it is easy to call ANY one who doesn't look like you,etc. a spy or a terrorist. A little thing called xenophobia....
Second,a lot of states use torture on foreigners and their citizens because of their own extreme paranoia,i.e. everyone is out to get me.
Third,like pointed out before,how do you know it isn't a wild goose chase you're being sent on?
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 06:23
First of all, torture is hardly a reliable method of extracting information. When you torture someone, they'll tell you anything you want to know, whether it's true or not.
Secondly, the United Nations is an organiztion which probably (well ideally, at least) best represents mankind as a whole. I know it's hard for you democratic types to admit, but maybe we should be legislating against immorality. I know it means a drop in extravagant lifestyles, but too bad. The United Nations needs more power, and needs to take a more active role in forcing people to act right, because they just don't know what's good for themselves.

The United Nations is not supposed to have power! For Chrissakes this has turned into a huge governing body, when all it was supposed to do is settle arguments between countries and foster peace! ARE WE FOSTERING PEACE BY GETTING HUGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE ANGRY AT US?
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 06:25
Apparations,
First,it is easy to call ANY one who doesn't look like you,etc. a spy or a terrorist. A little thing called xenophobia....
Second,a lot of states use torture on foreigners and their citizens because of their own extreme paranoia,i.e. everyone is out to get me.
Third,like pointed out before,how do you know it isn't a wild goose chase you're being sent on?

That's why you extract the information from them. Then you know if its a wild goose chase or not. Further, they will 85% of the time tell the truth during torture. I don't know about you career politicians, but that's a damned good percentage.
Quarka
08-12-2003, 06:33
This bill is abhorrent. Ridiculous.

Not within the jurisidiction of the UN.

I may pull out of the UN when this is passed so it does not affect me. Then go back in.
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 06:42
This bill is abhorrent. Ridiculous.

Not within the jurisidiction of the UN.

I may pull out of the UN when this is passed so it does not affect me. Then go back in.
Amen. Its those goddamn Civil Rights Activists. -Rubs forehead- Okay, if you catch a spy who you caught with the detonater to what seems to be an nuclear bomb, and its in a huge city with millions, are ou just going to let him go with a pat on the ass? ALL YOUR PEOPLE MIGHT DIE! Its insane!
08-12-2003, 06:52
I don't know about any of you, but if this bill passes, my ways of torture remain...Richard Simons: Sweatin' to the 80's and Biodome *Evil laughter!* They speak before I even turn on the TV!
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 07:00
I don't know about any of you, but if this bill passes, my ways of torture remain...Richard Simons: Sweatin' to the 80's and Biodome *Evil laughter!* They speak before I even turn on the TV!
Of course that would be my course of action, but, I believe all UN Members will be affected?
08-12-2003, 07:09
I am voting against the bill, but if it passes take these points to heart.

A point has been made, this only works against the barbaric (yet highly enjoyable) physical torture. More insidious forms of torture (like chemical and electrical treatmants) are more effective and have a more permanent effect on people. Their Definition is flawed, and that works to our advantage.

And who says we still can't use these methods on spies? Whats more embarising, getting caught torturing someone, or having the country that the person(who doesn't exist mind you) belongs to explain why they were in our secret anthrax 5 production plant? (which is secretly a fluffy choclate factory, yeah, that the ticket!)

And finally, They can't prove he was tortured if they can't find the body. A simple process of media silence regarding crime and similar problems solves a lot of problems. They can't prove anything if you don't let UN investigators into your country. :twisted:
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 08:26
Good point..
Wolfsreich
08-12-2003, 08:34
This is why my involvement in the UN is strictly limited to keeping a puppet state to defend certain regions against griefing. The actual governance of the place is like a hippy convention, and I would never place Wolfsreich into the hands of a bunch of tree-hugging idiots like that.

Reichsf├╝hrer Hans Osternacht
Rostock, ASW
Argyres
08-12-2003, 08:40
Amen to that Wolfsreich!

Nice to see some NM pride ;)
08-12-2003, 08:49
The United Nations does not have the right to dictate the law in its member countries. It cannot say 'no, you cannot have this punishment' or 'no, you cannot ban unions' or 'no, you cannot permit slavery'. They can draft resolutions CONDEMNING these acts, and can make the will of the whole UN council heard, but they cannot enforce it, and they should not try. It violates the individual sovereignity of it's nation states.
Quarka
08-12-2003, 09:36
The Nationstates(and real world) UN is becoming much like the United States Supreme Court, acting out of its jurisdiction and deciding the law where it should not.
08-12-2003, 12:44
There is an other way, you can also treathen to imprison a spy, it's not so abrubt like cutting of an arm or leg, but i think there aren't a lot of people that like to lose their freedom. Torture is inhuman, it's barbaric. What is next, torturing a murdersuspect untill he confesses? No this is just not right.
08-12-2003, 13:38
Thats the frist good thing ive heard a communist say something right i beleive there should be levels of torture
1.) whip him
2.) you kill him

thats all the steps 8) 8) :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
The Global Market
08-12-2003, 13:41
Veto the torture bill. A Nation must survive. A nation must know what its enemies know. A method is needed to extract this information.

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves, Mr. Hobbes, they only have the rights that individuals choose to give them. If it is established that individuals cannot torture people, even if they were wronged, then logically this right doesn't exist and doesn't transfer over to nations.
08-12-2003, 13:43
lets just say this the last time we need torture to get information
08-12-2003, 14:19
It's just badly worded. Voted against. Someone come up with an Acceptable Guidelines to Interrogation and / or Punishment. I mean, let's not clog the UN full of badly done Resolutions, eh?
Nebbyland
08-12-2003, 14:45
The United Nations does not have the right to dictate the law in its member countries. It cannot say 'no, you cannot have this punishment' or 'no, you cannot ban unions' or 'no, you cannot permit slavery'. They can draft resolutions CONDEMNING these acts, and can make the will of the whole UN council heard, but they cannot enforce it, and they should not try. It violates the individual sovereignity of it's nation states.

Yes it does, it's very very clear in the UN pages, I can't be bothered to look up the quote again, I've posted it here must be coming on to twenty times. Basically, what goes through the UN becomes law in all UN countries. It's not clear but deffinately implied that if you are in the UN then all passed UN resolutions apply to you the leaving the UN while a resolution passes doesn't work.

Ben
08-12-2003, 16:07
The resolution is very vague. What is cruel?? is the death penalty? Life w/o parole?? What is torture?? Denying sleep for 36 hours?? All this is really N/A because the UN should have no say over the Justice system of a country. If this passes it will be my last vote as a UN member
08-12-2003, 18:11
If any of you barbarians who still intitute torture inside your borders chose to foster respect with your citizens rather than fear, admiration rather than hatred, or tolerance rather than terror, your citizens would have nothing to hide from you, and thus you would not need torture. Perhaps you should consider why your citizens would need to hide anything from your, or why they would plot your demise. You "need" this information from your populace because you fear it, you fear what your malificence may revisit upon you.
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 18:21
Delegates I need endorsements, and then I will post an articulated and well-written, loop-hole free proposal to limit the UN's power!
08-12-2003, 18:28
Perhaps you should do the world a favor and limit your own! Those who seem to have the biggest problem with the UN are those who treat their nations as if they were a chew toy.
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 18:39
Perhaps you should do the world a favor and limit your own! Those who seem to have the biggest problem with the UN are those who treat their nations as if they were a chew toy.

For your information, my nation, and I'm pretty sure most of the others you claim to be treating their nations like chew-toys, have molded their government after an IRL government. I know I did. So unless you can attack the subject and hand and not the people presenting the subject, get the hell out of this thread.
Goobergunchia
08-12-2003, 18:44
Delegates I need endorsements, and then I will post an articulated and well-written, loop-hole free proposal to limit the UN's power!

If you read the sticky above this post, you'll see that that proposal will be deleted and you will get a warning for making a Game Mechanics proposal. If you want to change the UN's power, post in the Technical forum.

This has been an OOC post.
08-12-2003, 18:55
Torture must be allowed! Sure its all well and good to say its a nasty little thing but it can be completely justified. If for example a bomb were to explode in 3 hours and kill 25 million innocent citizens, but we had captured the person who hid the bomb. Wouldn't we be justified in torturing him to find the location of the bomb and save 25 million people? This is the Utilitarian argument on which many things are based. You are a monster if you would choose the pain and suffering of one sadistic bomber to the lives of 25 million people.
Communist Rule
08-12-2003, 18:58
Delegates I need endorsements, and then I will post an articulated and well-written, loop-hole free proposal to limit the UN's power!

If you read the sticky above this post, you'll see that that proposal will be deleted and you will get a warning for making a Game Mechanics proposal. If you want to change the UN's power, post in the Technical forum.

This has been an OOC post.

The way I plan to do it doesn't involve exactly changing the mechanics...its complicated..and I'm still thinking about it.
08-12-2003, 19:13
It's great, its the only way to get information you desperatlye need out of people, only nations who dont care about survival will vote for the ban; but if you're like me and want to succed, then you will vote against this stupid ban. Whoever suggested it is obviously gay. :evil:
08-12-2003, 19:15
It's great, its the only way to get information you desperatlye need out of people, only nations who dont care about survival will vote for the ban; but if you're like me and want to succed, then you will vote against this stupid ban. Whoever suggested it is obviously gay. :evil:
Dendrilys
08-12-2003, 19:40
Let's forget for a moment that the person who posted just before me obviously can't think of a mature way to express his discontent.

And let's set aside for a moment the question of whether this is within the UN mandate, or whether it means spies can't be punished, or whether it interferes with national sovereignty.

The question is, what formulas will the game mods use to apply this to us if we let it pass? Will they up our taxes? Will they up our civil liberties? Will they drop our economies? Will they drop our political freedoms?

Someone who pays attention to these things... kindly suggest how this resolution might practically affect our nations?
08-12-2003, 19:50
First of all, torture is hardly a reliable method of extracting information. When you torture someone, they'll tell you anything you want to know, whether it's true or not.
Secondly, the United Nations is an organiztion which probably (well ideally, at least) best represents mankind as a whole. I know it's hard for you democratic types to admit, but maybe we should be legislating against immorality. I know it means a drop in extravagant lifestyles, but too bad. The United Nations needs more power, and needs to take a more active role in forcing people to act right, because they just don't know what's good for themselves.

The United Nations is not supposed to have power! For Chrissakes this has turned into a huge governing body, when all it was supposed to do is settle arguments between countries and foster peace! ARE WE FOSTERING PEACE BY GETTING HUGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE ANGRY AT US?

He's right the u.n. should not have power, saying it should is just scary and besides what is the point of running our own country if it's being run by other people. Torture does work.
08-12-2003, 20:03
Torture does work, but in a very limited capacity. Who is to say those you torure are telling the truth? Coerced confessions do not get you justice, and if you're torturing for intelligence, the victim could be offering up tainted information just to get you to remove the cattle prod from their rectum. What if you act on this disinfo and come out with egg on your face. Was the torture worth it in that case?
08-12-2003, 20:10
I could care less about spies and all that other crap, but my problem lies in the fact that a confessed criminal could be set free if he bangs his head against the wall and say that it was done to him. criminals must pay.
Dendrilys
08-12-2003, 20:13
Um... it all comes back to definitions: what is torture? Who is covered by the resolution? What if spies aren't because the nation enforcing the proposal has a law in place stating that people violating national security are no longer humans by legal definitions?

And I have to agree that torture doesn't necessarily lead to accurate information. Or to any sort of postive outcomes, frankly. Once you start allowing it, what's to stop the actual physical torturers from deciding that's a good thing to do when their kids don't remember to take out the garbage?
Tovarich Patrick
08-12-2003, 20:17
I strongly disagree with this ban, How can a nation interrogate a captured enemy spy, you cannot go without knowing or else it will certainly lead to down fall and sneak attack. Besides theres nothing wrong with the beating out of a guy whom was stealing your information for his own country.
08-12-2003, 20:20
I only voted against teh bill because I think it's my right as a country leader to decide what is just in my country. It's not the UN's decision how I interrogate people, though I would never induce a desired response by abuse.
08-12-2003, 20:26
let me please clarify my earlier post before anyone yells at me. I do think that Barbaric torture should be outlawed, and those found to be practicing it after extensive inquiries should be fined, but any evidence should be admisible in a court.
imported_Puffinstuff
08-12-2003, 22:51
Note well that the Principality of Puffinstuff does not condone torture of any kind. That having been said, Puffinstuff cannot support the END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS Act of 2003 due to its nebulous nature.

As mentioned previously, the act itself is nebulously worded, giving little definition to what constitutes torture other than the breaking of bones and blinding and bruising of people. Without a set definition for torture, one could easily define torture as putting somebody in a prison cell.

Furthermore, the act states that "Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine." Who shall collect said fine? To whom shall the currency collected through the fine go?

Due to the nebulous nature of this resolution, I cannot approve. I urge all of you, even those of you who are opposed to torture as I, to reject this resolution, as well as any resolution whose title is posted in all capital letters, on the grounds of its nebulous wording.
08-12-2003, 23:03
The Free people of Jaru have already Cast our vote.. We of Jaru oppose all use of violence..We therefor have voted to up hold the proposed ban on Tourcher..
09-12-2003, 01:39
09-12-2003, 01:39
i have to agree with this as a small countery i do not want to be wiped uot so an enemy can build a minnie_mart on my grave. if this is the only way then so be it i vote to allow torture and capital punishment. Let a stern calling to those who enter my country if you are cot you will be put as a statistic. heed this well you can now be liable to be punished whatever may fit.i have a friend in this game who also agrees he may be insane here and outside of the game but i stand by him! let no one spill info on my country for money or espianoge is on its way.
MAY DEATH COME ON SWIFT WINGS TO MY ENEMIES AND THEIR FAMALIES
09-12-2003, 01:40
i have to agree with this as a small countery i do not want to be wiped uot so an enemy can build a minnie_mart on my grave. if this is the only way then so be it i vote to allow torture and capital punishment. Let a stern calling to those who enter my country if you are cot you will be put as a statistic. heed this well you can now be liable to be punished whatever may fit.i have a friend in this game who also agrees he may be insane here and outside of the game but i stand by him! let no one spill info on my country for money or espianoge is on its way.
MAY DEATH COME ON SWIFT WINGS TO MY ENEMIES AND THEIR FAMALIES
Cheese Co
09-12-2003, 01:49
Veto the bill defenately. We can't interogate anyone if they won't talk.and they won't talk if they can't be tortured.
09-12-2003, 01:50
09-12-2003, 01:51
I COMPLETELY agree with Communist Rule. There was an incident in the United States military a little time ago in which a Colonel, or officer ranked closed to that, used his service sidearm as a sort of incentive to procure information. The prisoner refused to give up information deemed vital to whatever mission it was. Therefore, the colonel unholstered his sidearm, and fired a round directly beside the prisoner's ear. The information was instantly forthcoming, because the colonel said that the next shot would not be a warning. That colonel was subsequently court-martialled for what was deemed unacceptable interrogation processes. This is just a scratch at the surface, showing that torture is a necessary and acceptable method of information acquisition. Veto the torture bill.
09-12-2003, 02:00
I completely agree. The bill should not be passed. 85% is a percent I could live with. What costs more tax payers money? Beating a guy with a large blunt object or trying him in court for 10 years when he obiously did it? I'm not saying all accused are guilty, but torture is probably the most effective way of getting somebody to talk. Besides, whats gonna keep crime down, fear of being bored to death by lawyers, or the thought or a led pipe smashing your skull?
09-12-2003, 02:20
This is it. The U.N. has gone to far. I have not minded the anti landmine proposals, and all the other ones that infringe on MY NATIONS BELIEFS. But this is it. If this passes, to hell with the U.N., i'm resigning. I probably have one of the toughest stands for torture on any level, and I am not going to give it up for a patch on my arms that reads "Proud U.N. Member". I hope that all of you who feel the same as I do will act on a level of extreme prejudice, and stand up for your beliefs and not back down.
09-12-2003, 03:53
My friends and fellow delegates. The time to protect the soverignty and the stability of member nations of the United Nations is at hand.

The resolution is a strict violation of the sovereignty of all member nations and the idea that it will weaken my countries ability to protect itself is ludicrous.

The purpose of the United Nations is to promote stability in an anarchic international system. Because of the lack of any real inforcment of international law any country has the ability to do whatever they feel is necessary. When the UN violates the soverignty of the member nations it hinders the UNs ability to encourage international stability.

As this continous debate shows, many states feel this resolution is too strong and will hinder their ability to control their own nations. The only sensible alternative when this happens is to leave the UN.

So support of this resolution will only send many states out of the UN weakening the democratic ideals that it entails.

Therefore the delegate from Hanszen finds it in the best interest of all nations to veto this resolution.
09-12-2003, 04:53
His Most Serene highness, Willwont the Wise, Dowager Prince of Heraklaneum wishes to draw all UN members attention to the fact that the practise of spying is ILLEGAL. If the UN wishes to regulate an ILLEGAL practice, then as an organisation it must impose measures to support its member nations in protecting THEMSELVES from the effects of a practice that it, as an organisation, wishes to regulate.

His Highness extends his grace to all other Un members.

Sincerely,
Ima von Sumac
Second minister of the Royal Chamber of Counsel, Grand Duchy of Heraklaneum.
Riannen
09-12-2003, 04:58
I believe that not only should torture be legal, (it is unfortunately sometimes necessary) but that this resolution is also badly written. Even bruising, which can happen simply when forcibly moving someone, is banned. It also does nto specify what it means for the punishment to fit the crime. We cannot pass this resolution.
09-12-2003, 06:22
Whoever suggested it is obviously gay. :evil:

The Republic of Leather and Vinyl has a large and varied population of people from all walks of life and sexual orientations, and we find your statements offensive and fairly crude. It has been a stated observation that homosexuals are no more intelligent or stupider than a heterosexual Vinylian, despite what our more radical members of society may actually say in private.
09-12-2003, 06:32
While some argue that the U.N.'s proposal to ban torture surpasses their boundaries, it in fact does not. The UN has the right and the power to pass resolution which member states MUST follow. However, my nation does NOT agree with the UN's proposal, simply because it is unfeasible and unenforceable. While torture is often viewed as barbaric, it can often be related to a "cat-and-mouse game"; where the torturer is attempting to extract information by ANY MEANS NECCESARY (this denotes The Republic of Rambutan's abhorence of unneccesary torture) and the captive is attempting to resist for as long as s/he can. Do not allow the passage of this bill, as our collective nations' intelligence services effectiveness will decrease by at least 60%
imported_Nem
09-12-2003, 06:37
Does this resolution only apply to physical torture, or would it also apply to the more effective psychological forms of torture?
Quarka
09-12-2003, 06:39
Whoever suggested it is obviously gay. :evil:

The Republic of Leather and Vinyl has a large and varied population of people from all walks of life and sexual orientations, and we find your statements offensive and fairly crude. It has been a stated observation that homosexuals are no more intelligent or stupider than a heterosexual Vinylian, despite what our more radical members of society may actually say in private.

Political correctness is terrible. Stand down. He may say as he pleases.
Fredericksville
09-12-2003, 06:43
Thankyou all for seeing the light. Without Torture we all open ourselves up to terrorism and mayhem. Pass the word, VETO this Bill ASAP
Communist Rule
09-12-2003, 06:59
Whoever suggested it is obviously gay. :evil:

The Republic of Leather and Vinyl has a large and varied population of people from all walks of life and sexual orientations, and we find your statements offensive and fairly crude. It has been a stated observation that homosexuals are no more intelligent or stupider than a heterosexual Vinylian, despite what our more radical members of society may actually say in private.

Political correctness is terrible. Stand down. He may say as he pleases.

A-fucking-men. Political correctness is what has destroyed the UN, what has destroyed governments. It is a horrible thing. Sure, its not polite to call someone a ****** of spic or Jewboy, etc. But making laws against things like that is ludicrous!
09-12-2003, 07:17
you are totaly right :!: :!: :!: this bill would not allow interogation at all my lizard methods of torture and public flogings :twisted: keep crime down


(note my country is made entirely of lizard men)
09-12-2003, 07:28
Political correctness is terrible. Stand down. He may say as he pleases.

Funny that. Doesn't that mean I get to say what I please, as well?
09-12-2003, 08:01
The passing of this bill will mean the green light for us to begin testing our new brainwashing drugs. Oh don't worry, they'll feel extremely pleasant, possibly more so than they'll ever feel in their lives. But this euphoria will also make them lower their defences completely so they'll simply do whatever we ask of them. Regrettably, the effect of the drug is permanent. *evil laugh*
Frigben
09-12-2003, 08:38
This time the U.N. has gone too far. Frigben, however, will not resign from the UN when this passes. Yes, we said "when." The U.N. is overflowing with people who think with their hearts and not their heads. Thankfully, due to their ignorance, we are free to sidestep this ruling in protest; since the bill does not define torture or cruel/unusual punishments, we define torture as releasing the prisoner without extracting information, and define cruel/unusual punishment as allowing the prisoner to sleep. Good day, UN deleingrates.
09-12-2003, 09:29
Hmm, On fixing the UN. You could make a resolution, its like a bill, except you don't have to do anything. Its basically saying "We promise to follow this plan of action." So you could introduce something like "...be it resolved that all definitions in UN bills be based off the website Dictionary.com" (not a politician, can't word it correctly, but thats pretty close.)
09-12-2003, 09:52
What an amazing number of people who are wealthy enough (or the children of people wealthy enough) to own computers, but who are still so cheerfully ignorant on so many issues.

The UNs sole reason for existing is to infringe on the absolute sovereignty of national governments. If you don't like that then fight to abolish it. But there's not much point in a world body that doesn't have the power to do anything. Those on the right are amusing on this point, they complain about the evils of some theoretical world government, but when the Iraq issue came up suddenly the UN was bad for being as divided and indecisive as it usually is.

A UN convention against torture exists in real life, this is not some amazing communist plot invented to drive up the blood pressure of conservative NS players.

There is a rather frightening assumption by many writers that torture is a useful way to get information from people. This is far from proven, as others have noted people often lie under torture to make it stop, or give the names of those uninvolved in their crimes. Some people can resist nearly all forms of physical pressure, others none at all. What no one can resist is psychological pressure - keeping people awake, harassing them with noise, and so on. Much more effective and not banned under this resolution. This is what the US is doing in Guantanamo Bay, so they say, so all those who think (and, worse, would approve) that the US is torturing people at present are not listening to the words of the government in question.

Finally, this is a very poorly written resolution, as are most of the ones that come up for a vote. But that doesn't change the fact that this is rather a pedestrian proposal, and well inside the real world orbit of the UNs activities.

Of course in real life there aren't thousands of nations run by twelve year olds pretending to be Nazis so I should probably relax...

Best wishes,

DWC
(for the) Commonwealth of Khan Daun Penh
Frigben
09-12-2003, 12:12
But that doesn't change the fact that this is rather a pedestrian proposal, and well inside the real world orbit of the UNs activities.
True. But this resolution is too vague; it leaves too much room for interpretation. It poorly defines torture.

What no one can resist is psychological pressure - keeping people awake, harassing them with noise, and so on. Much more effective and not banned under this resolution.
Some liberal UN nation can drag a nation before an international tribunal because of the loose definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Alienware
09-12-2003, 16:59
Veto the torture bill. A Nation must survive. A nation must know what its enemies know. A method is needed to extract this information.

I'm all for vetoing the torture bill and all, but there is more than one method of getting information from an enemy. This method comes in the form of truth syrom. This should be the step before torturing the enemy to get information. If they resist the syrom then you torture.
Dendrys
09-12-2003, 17:22
The UNs sole reason for existing is to infringe on the absolute sovereignty of national governments. If you don't like that then fight to abolish it. But there's not much point in a world body that doesn't have the power to do anything.

Respected delegates,

There is no point to having a United Nations if every proposal is to be rejected on the grounds that it interferes with national sovereignty. There are circumstances under which the United Nations have gone too far and asked member nations to accept resolutions that are in contradiction with our governments, which is why Dendrys is no longer a member. But in general, Dendrys wishes that it could be part of an international organisation that would discourage abuses of human rights in a mature, level-headed, practical way.

We of Dendrys are appalled to think that anyone considers physical or psychological torture an effective method of questioning people. We hold that nothing worthwhile can be obtained by cruelty. There is too much risk of abuse by the practitioners (torture when torture is unnecessary) and too much risk that the information obtained may be false, misleading or damaging. And, we find, once physical abuse is permitted in one context, it rapidly spreads; torture is a fungus on the face of civilisation. We fully support this resolution, and in fact herald and applaud the fact that, if it passes, it may curb some of the more outrageous human rights violations taking place in some extreme nations.

But then, we must agree that given that several of these nations are run by people who cannot tell the difference between free speech and rudeness (using "gay" as an insult) and who cannot grasp that all freedoms must be used with wisdom, courage and commitment to be of value, it comes as no surprise that said nations cannot grasp the difference between a destructively antisovereign resolution such as the absurd labor union one and a positively necessary antisovereign resolution to stop the very heinous crimes being committed against individuals in our world. But then, perhaps the national leaders have never had to witness the scars left by physical torture, the horrible alienation caused by cruelty and spreading through families, communities and nations until the best lack all conviction and the worst are most sure of themselves. Perhaps the national leaders have never experienced anything more traumatic than falling off a bicycle and therefore cannot grasp the human impact of their uninformed remarks.


Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees
09-12-2003, 17:41
Chapter 1 Article 2 Section 7

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter

With this in mind it is clear that the foundation of the UN is based around the strenght of sovereign nations. Now the delegate from Hanszen does in all respects feel that there does need to be strength in the UN but this resolution is absurd.

The reason we have the UN is simply. Without any enforcement predicaments like the prisoners dilemma arise resulting the international stability, so the UN removes many aspects of anarchy in the international system.

Yet when we give the UN power to limit the ability of sovereign nations then we limit our own ability to rule our own nations.

Each nation has their government for a reason the way it is. A democratic nation feels that the people should pick their leaders, while a dictatorship has put their faith in the rule of a single man.

The UN in no way represents the views of my people or of the people of any nation. It has nothing to do with democracy or representation of any kind. Did my people elect the secretary general? Did yours? In addition the democratic ideal of equal representation does not exist in the UN. China gets the same number of votes in the GA as Uzbekistan. And many states are given more representation in the Security Council than others.

With these issues in mind should we really give our sovereign power to other a supranational government? Do we then want to give them an army to sweep away the governments it doesn't like? Should we change our flags to that of the UN and destroy all national heritage in favor of the vain ideal of international stability?

I urge all members of the UN to veto this resolution. If this resolution passes it leads us down an ugly path that will lead to the destruction of the nation state, and the destuction of all.
09-12-2003, 17:41
One of the biggest problems with allowing torture of witnesses is who gets to say what type of witnesses get to be tortured. If you allow torturing it could cause witnesses of simple crimes to be tortured just because the authorities can. It allows to much power for a select few in government. Before long people would start being punished because they voted the wrong way or said the wrong thing. There are other ways to find information. Money is always the best incentive to talk.
Dendrilys
09-12-2003, 17:49
The UN in no way represents the views of my people or of the people of any nation. It has nothing to do with democracy or representation of any kind. Did my people elect the secretary general? Did yours? In addition the democratic ideal of equal representation does not exist in the UN. China gets the same number of votes in the GA as Uzbekistan. And many states are given more representation in the Security Council than others.

Then don't participate.

It is patently absurd to assert that the UN exists to reduce anarchy. The UN exists to provide advocacy for humans on an international level. The systems of government employed by the nations in which those humans live are only relevant insofar as they are not abused for the purpose of harming those humans.

Respectfully,
Elaine Sylvan
Arboreal Delegate
09-12-2003, 18:05
Quite simple really - vote against because the resolution will achieve absolutely nothing useful because it's ineffectively worded.
Yes, torture of innocent civilians is bad.
Yes, without being able to co-erce spies your national security could be severely undermined.
However, it's worth noting that members of some religious and / or terroist groups believe so wholly that they are right that almost nothing will convince them to talk.

If this resolution was properly worded so that it included an exact definition of what torture constitutes and the circumstances under which it is banned, I would support it. The UN does not have too much power, and unfortunately you have to tread on people's toes to achieve anything these days - I'm sure there are plenty of political leaders out there who are unhappy with any laws regarding child labour. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be there, or that the UN should ignore such matters.
Aldomina
09-12-2003, 19:06
Who is this Checkoslovakia? Are they even a member anymore? Or are they just somebody's idea of a Joke on self-respecting memebers of Nationstates? I thought NS was supposed to be fun...Not about Real life...Fantasy...Role playing...Doom...Diablo...Myst...Character building...Why make a make believe world that is exactly the real life world with laws that can not be backed up? I enjoy most of the great Role playing elements of NS, but some of the folks here take it a lttle too seriously...and then there are ones that are out for their own agendas...that may or may not exsist. :evil:
09-12-2003, 19:18
That is inherently the problem.

If a country feels it is in their best interest to leave the UN than that weakens the UN. Resolutions like this that infringe on the sovereignty of states give that state 2 options.

1. Comply knowing full well that the country did not want to

2. Dont comply and leave the UN.

The UNs control in the game of NationStates only goes as far as its members. So if any country pulls out then the UN no longer has any affect on them. So now that country no longer has to follow any resolution.

If another resolution were to pass that was less vague and that did not violate the soveriengty of a state as much as this resolution does then less people would choose the option of leaving the UN.

This resolution despite the best intentions only weakens the UNs control over contries that will torture.
Quarka
10-12-2003, 07:16
The UN simply is out of its jurisdiction.

We still have time to repeal this! We aren't far behind! Although most votes are currently FOR this, we can make the AGAINST votes overwhelm them! Quickly, time is running out!
10-12-2003, 15:04
I personally cannot support the motion against torture for the reasons I set out below, I urge everyone to think carefully about this proposal.

Individual rights also entail individual responsiblity to the community as a whole and to the soveriegn power. A right and a duty however are not moral creatures, morality and right and wrong exist outside of these parameters.

Take the right not to be tortured. It is a amalgamtion of many seperate rights, among them: the right to bodily and mental integrity, the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right not to be pained, or killed, the right to save one's life (wrongly reduced merely to the right to self-defense), the right to prolong one's life (e.g., by receiving medical attention), and the right not to be forced to lie under duress.

None of these rights is self-evident, or unambiguous, or universal, or immutable, or automatically applicable. It is safe to say, therefore, that these rights are not primary - but derivative, nonessential, or mere "wants" the way we'd like things to be, they are not of themselves devine.

The wider community and soveriegn also has rights which may justify the use of torture, this is often overlooked by liberals.

All these rights, the rights to live etcetera form a social contract, they are constantly ebbing and flowing between A, B and C but does A's right to life overrule C's right to justice if the only way justice can be fulfilled is A's death. In the case of an attack by A on B. Is B prevented from enforcing his right to life because of A's right to survive , NO. The same can be said of torture when mental pressure fails to exact a remedy then torture is justified.

As I've said the rights of an individual are not immutable, when one refuses to co-operate with the state , you are abbrogating the rights of others and have broken the social contract in most states you lose the rights of liberty, but you also lose the right to life and to be free from torture. There is a natural progression here. You welch on your side of the contract and you should suffer the consequence.

Moreover, torture is erroneously perceived by liberals as a kind of punishment. Suspects - innocent until proven guilty - indeed should not be subject to penalty. But torture is merely an interrogation technique. Ethically, it is no different to any other pre-trial process: shackling, detention, questioning, or bad press. Inevitably, the very act of suspecting someone is traumatic and bound to inflict pain and suffering - psychological, pecuniary, and physical - on the suspect.

Take the case of the ticking time bomb - there is a bomb in a location know only to the accused ticking down to detonation, all mental interrogation has failed and the accused refuses to help, should we not apply torture, or should we give his rights precedence over the rights of innocents?

For the above reasons I vote against this motion and urge others to do so to
10-12-2003, 17:39
Apparations,
First,it is easy to call ANY one who doesn't look like you,etc. a spy or a terrorist. A little thing called xenophobia....


Well presumably a nation will disavow any knowledge of a spy caught spying, and leave them to their own fate (or bargain for them), whereas any of their civilians accused of spying they would wholeheartedly protect, for they have done nothing wrong. As a RL example look at Britain's defence of a group of tourists last summer caught photographing planes in Greece and accused of being spies.
10-12-2003, 19:26
The bill is not a good idea...If a nation is willing to spend money to put a spy into enemy territory, then why do they believe that he cannot be touched. I totally believe in vetoing the bill.
10-12-2003, 19:35
This bill completely rules out interrogation! If a spy knows he cannot be harmed, then he will not talk. If murder is considered barbaric, it falls under this bill. IT BASICALLY SENDS CAUGHT SPIES PACKING WITH A PAT ON THE REAR END!

Jim Skardon of MI5 got Klaus Fuchs to confess without so much as uttering a harsh word.
10-12-2003, 19:40
The UN is a giant obscenity to modern political philosophy.

If the idea of government and civilization is what the moderns believed then:

The people/members retain all rights not expressly given to the state. The state's powers are severly restrained (manifested in the Magna Carta and later in the 9th and 10th ammendments to the US Constitution). The theory follows, "we give the state police power so that we can focus on living, and in return the state protects us." When the state ceases to protect, the police power returns to the people who are no longer in civilization but in the "state of nature." This is the basis of self defense laws.

The UN is uber-powerful and does not protect. We are in the state of nature and the UN is the enemy we find ourselves fighting.

The UN violates every precept of Liberal governmental philosophy. It is obscene as government and farce as debate society.
10-12-2003, 19:59
:oops: why not use polygraphs, granted their not 100% correct but beats the whole good cop-bad cop play and why can't torture be having to listen to Kate Bush song while being stuck in a round room.

Persons who don't want to be heard.
The men behind the suits.
10-12-2003, 22:11
About the whole interrogating a spy thing. Most of the time, a spy has gone through training to resist torture and be able to lie during torture. Spies and the nations they work for aren't stupid, you know.
10-12-2003, 22:11
About the whole interrogating a spy thing. Most of the time, a spy has gone through training to resist torture and be able to lie during torture. Spies and the nations they work for aren't stupid, you know.
10-12-2003, 22:41
Why are we losing the vote then?

The delegate from Hanszen feels that it is a lost cause, and that this resolution will unfortunatly pass.

So I recommend the dissenters take action.

A mass exodus of the UN.

When the vote ends, every single member of the UN that voted against leave the UN. The countries will no longer be contolled by this one world government.

With that then the dissenters can create a voting block. Then we can gain support and propose our own resolutions, ones that we feel are beneficial to the international community. With thes proposals formulated we could then move the UN and the world towards a better place

The delgate from Hanszen requests responses in the form of telegraphs if any other state would be willing to aid this exodus.
11-12-2003, 01:44
The UN is a big damned bunch of hippies. All they want to do is infringe on how you want to govern your nation. Seeing as though there are diffrent groups, some having diffrent opinions than others, how can they say this is fair? We smaller country's against the UN's oppressovness need to band together.
11-12-2003, 03:42
This debate isn't only over interrogation, which does require the threat of physical harm, but also the usage of such acts as punishment for crimes. Who will decide what is considered cruel and unusual? "Cruel" and "unusual" can mean totally different things for different people. Some people enjoy watching Fox reality TV shows. I personally would consider being forced to watch these shows are a punishment worse than death. If countries are not given the power to decide for themselves exactly what punishment fits the crime, then a multitude of horrendous crimes will go unpunished because the UN doesn't want to allow its member nations to do what they must. If we are not given this power, then we lose a power that we have the right to have. My nation will not stand for it. I hope many of you will not allow this ban to happen.
Wealthy pigs
11-12-2003, 03:59
It is the best way to get information. If they don't talk kill them!!!! :evil:
11-12-2003, 04:48
THIS RESILUTION IS A LOAD OF BULL. the threat of torture is enough to make most people talk, plus my nations zero crime is caused by it's deterance polocy, which this resiloution would ban.
11-12-2003, 05:16
I would have to agree with most of the posts here...

If there is even a threat of torture, it will dissuade spies/terrorists/etc...
If that threat is removed, then they'll run all over everywhere...

The UN should primarily be a governing body designed to prevent nation vs. nation covering war and coordinating other efforts (famine, pestilence, so on...).

Nothing should be decided by the UN that changes the way nations do business on their own soil, period.
11-12-2003, 05:16
11-12-2003, 07:26
Ban torture? No global harm is being committed here no mass deforestations, no innocents are being killed. So, Why? Why over step the boundaries of Nation's right to sovereignty? This seems a little too much. Ban nukes, ban bio weapons, and ban ocean dumping but don't ban something because it doesn't fit your ideal logical agenda. If it hurts no other nations or the environment than leave it alone. The people of those nations will rebel if they deem the torturing unfair.
Reagani
11-12-2003, 10:02
As much as my nation abhors communism, i too voted to veto the torture bill. please refer to my own thread for my reasons
11-12-2003, 11:13
The Republic of Aeriador will also vote against this resoultion. Should it pass, my nation informs the hall that it will tender its resignation from the U.N.

My nation is one of progressive ideals and civil liberties, and would never torture its own citizens. However, in matters of national security, high treason, etc, it RESERVES THE RIGHT to do whatever it deams neccessary, within the confines of UN resolutions, in the interest of the state. Therefore we will be forced to leave the UN if this resolution is sucessful.

My country does not believe the UN has a clear mandate on such an issue, and believes this topic should be reserved for the individual nation to decide on. We view the current resolution as a threat to our national sovereignty, and thus will not tolerate a UN interference over this issue.

Regards
11-12-2003, 14:17
If we dont have torture, what are us lovely leaders gonna do for fun. And what is going to stop old people roaming free in our streets.

If this bill passes then I will not be paying any attention to it. I will instead do more of it. All this thing of it won't be used in court, Well my court will. If you can't force a confession what can you do? Thats why my country deals with crime so well :D
Aging Rock Stars
11-12-2003, 14:36
<quote>(The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.) <end quote>
If this is stricken from the resolution, I will have no problem voting yay!
11-12-2003, 15:44
If we dont have torture, what are us lovely leaders gonna do for fun. :D As the delegate of a region full of leaders who love "fun," I agree with you all the way.
11-12-2003, 15:44
If we dont have torture, what are us lovely leaders gonna do for fun. :D As the delegate of a region full of leaders who love "fun," I agree with you all the way.
11-12-2003, 17:57
I am personally voting against the proposal.

Also, as ambassador for the region of "Baath Arab Socialist States" I am hearby isueing a veto on behalf of all member states.

I will give official confirmation of this veto in the nect 48 hours.

The Empire of Kevin Land.
11-12-2003, 18:25
i support a ban on torture because it presupposes guilt and has historically been used to support regimes that protect only the rights of the elite. i'd rather be morally right than free from fear, and would rather risk harm to my nation than include my people in such an evil.

respectfully,

foolscongress, p.m. pelagastan
Naelosia
11-12-2003, 18:44
How do you delete posts? I accidentally posted 5 times instead of one.

Go into the thread.
Above 'your' post it should say edit.
Click it.
At the bottom there is a checkmark box which says delete post.
If you can't do the rest by yourself you are hopeless.
11-12-2003, 18:52
Captured al-Qaida "freedom fighters" have absolutely no logical sense about them. Therefore, I believe no amount of torture could persuade the insane. Then the act of using physical torture becomes barbaric and useless. If spies are willing to commit suicide for their country, why would they talk under torture? Why waste time with a few useless spies? Command, invade and conquer the infidels!
Teakland
11-12-2003, 19:29
As a new member of the United Nations, I was initially overwhelmed by the proposed resolution against torture, and the furious debate that ensued. However, after some deliberation, I have found that I must address two points.

Firstly, about the torture resolution: it should not pass. I know I have very little chance of convincing the capital L-Liberals that the resolution is SERIOUSLY flawed, as many of the people on this thread are of the "ooooh, we can't outlaw torture because it's so fun to see the piggies bleed and besides my XBox is broken and there's nothing good on tv" mindset. However, any person who reads the resolution must understand that the definition of torture is too vague to accurately say what falls inside the term's borders. I vote against the bill not necessarily because I am for torture, but because it's just a bad bill. I like kittens, but if there was a bill that said "I want to give a bajillion dollars to house the homeless kitties because they're cute," I'd veto it because it was a bad bill.

Secondly, for those people that feel that the United Nations infringes on sovereignty and a nation's rights: you're absolutely right. The point of belonging to a group that tries to better the world is that, if you feel it is important, you have the right to give up some of your rights in order to belong to that group. If you don't think it's important any more, or you feel it doesn't represent you, by all means, feel free to leave. And I humbly suggest you leave quickly, so that your hindquarters don't have a nasty collision with the door on your way out.

Chairman Teeth
People's Spokesman
11-12-2003, 21:36
11-12-2003, 21:36
11-12-2003, 21:36
as many of the people on this thread are of the "ooooh, we can't outlaw torture because it's so fun to see the piggies bleed and besides my XBox is broken and there's nothing good on tv"
Hey, I had to say that, because I'm a UN delegate, and I represent countries whose leaders say such things.
12-12-2003, 11:48
We of Chumba, agree. Interrogation and it's methods are needed to some point when faced with countries that deal within espionage. How ever one should also look at the rights of an individual while dealing in this matter. In some cases good Interrogators can inflict as much mental abuse to break the subject as physical harm can.

We of Chumba vote for the motion