NationStates Jolt Archive

My fellow United Nations delegates,

I am sending this letter not to change all of your ways of thinking...but to mainly show you the point of view of a lot of the countries here in the UN.

It seems to me that this Banning of Torture bill goes against the rights of EVERY country.
Those of you who are voting for this bill right now...I emplore you to reconsider and look at this thing not from a "moral" perspective..because that definition DIFFERS from country to country. But I ask that you take a step back and realize what this would mean. This would mean that anyone caught in your country as a spy COULD be put in jail, could be sentenced to death, but would YOUR country get anything out of it? By the time that spy is caught, all the information he has acquired up to that point is already in his homelands hands. If he knows he isnt going to be injured and can wait around for a trial or a death penalty or what not..then he is more apt to shut his mouth and wait. Because think about this..if you had a spy in another country who got caught...wouldnt YOU send in some guys to bring him back? Yes..so thats all the spy would have to wait for.

So I emplore you..if you WANT to know what the other country knows about you, if you WANT to know about that other country, and if you have any rationalization in your decision making whatsoever THIS BILL WILL NOT PASS!

However if you want to let other countries spy on you, if you want to NOT be able to get information out of "terrorists" or other everyday "criminals" and possible "gangsters" or "spys", if you want to have NO control over any of these things, then by all means Let this pass.....

But as a rational and understanding leader and UN Delegate, I am voting against this bill because I want the control over what my country does to these horrible people.

I will not let my countrys information get leaked out and have no way to stop it.....

I ask that you all do the same before this bill gets passed...

A vote for No...is a vote for YOUR COUNTRIES RIGHTS and FREEDOMS!


Thank you,

Dict. William Throckmorton,
UN Delegate and leader of Czechoslobillya

I voted against it because it is too easy for someone to abuse it.

Countries don't have rights in and of themselves; only what rights individuals choose to give them.

Does torture include the educational process?

Countries don't have rights in and of themselves; only what rights individuals choose to give them.


It depends on your government.

But with what you say...if the people give you the right to torture criminals, spys, possible terrorists for information...

and then the UN just RIPS it away....is that fair to the countries or the people of the countries that support this?

The UN should not determine something like this....the people and the governments should determine this.

As a new member to the UN, I wanted to speak to all about something we find in my country to be very important. Outlawing torture is just plain wrong!! Though this might seem as a heinous practice to some, it is by far one of the most effective ways to stop crime,terrorism or any other acts against your countries. If you can stop just one act against you,just one, by using methods against some might find"mean",and by doing so, you save many lives. And it doesn't stop there. The world would be such a safer place. We,as world leaders, have a responsibilty to stop acts of destruction against all mankind!!

I voted against it because it is too easy for someone to abuse it.

i completely agree with u

I voted against it. But I fear it will pass as long as the UN has no manditory voting regulation. The really sad fact is that , whikle the UN requires compliance with all passed resolution it , for some reason, feels that it does not have the right to "require" all member nations to vote on all issues. Thus most resolutions pass with less than a true majority vote because most member nations just don't vote. :x

My fellow UN Delagates,

After examining this bill, I find that the intention of it is good, to prevent the abuse of others, but I find it is too vague. This bill could be construed to prevent many nations from using the death penalty against murderers and rapists. It could also be used against psychological means of getting information.

I believe the bill must be revised and narrowed before I can vote for it.

Paul Preschov
Amb. to UN
Confederacy of Darmir

nah... the US is allowed to use any methods that don't cause "extreme" pain... that's pretty loose... people will be bending this resolution--making exceptions, not over-enforcing it.

In Jaru there is only one deffinition for Tourcher and we oppse it no matter what deffinition you may give it..

COME ON< AT LEAST LET THE BILL BE REVISED...

It does not
Maybe your some sick person who likes to go against everyones rights and torture. But that is cruel and i really think that what you said was the most ignorant thing I have ever heard!!!!!!!!! :evil: :twisted: :x

I would like to point out that the Bill specifically applies to witnesses, and makes no mention of criminals. The Confederacy of Inbred Rednecks, in anticipation of the Bill's passage, has already began the process of drafting a law to make the non-disclosure of evidence by the witness of a crime a criminal act.

I would like to point out that the Bill specifically applies to witnesses, and makes no mention of criminals.

The specific quote I have from the resolution also what mentions criminals and I quote
"The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.) "

So they are trying to have another agenda here. I have a question for this statement on the resolution that totally makes it a poorly thought out statement. What if someone's crime was that they tortured and killed someone. Wouldn't the punishment of torturing and killing THEM constute a punishment fitting the crime? You can't have eye for an eye mentatlity in the same statement as non cruelty of criminals, It just isnt possible! crimes are sometimes violent and cruel, and the quid pro quo would also have to be violent and cruel for the punishment to fit the crime!

This person who wrote this resolution has crude and imcomplete thought processes which is why I vote against. rewrite the sucker and be more specific next time!

I as exalted leader and demigod of the great empire of Conqerall am giving you great thanks on those of you who are deciding on voting for this resolution. It is good to know that when any of my many spies are found in one of your UN nations that they will be well cared for and I will not have to worry that they will be corerced into revealing any information about my nation. I also take great glee in knowing that your criminals will be treated well and many millions of tax dollars will be spent on thier non cruel punishment when I boil my criminals in oil for a live tv audience or some other fitting punishment and actually make money with the tv advertising revenues! I take great comfort knowing that my agents will be imprisoned safetly and well fed until I take an insurgent batallion to your nation and liberate them. Ah yes the glee I will take in destroying your battlements and killing your personell that my spy was so gracious to supply me with your Security plans that you have no idea what he knows because you cant get him to talk! As I already condition my spies to be resistant to any mild forms of interogation I can take confort in knowing my nation is safe and yours will soon fall because I can use any and all means necessary to torture information out of your citizens. And when I am through I can dump thier living carcass out of a plane over one of your more peaceful towns and watch the terror!! hehe!

Signed this day
The High exalted ruler dictator power of allmighty on earth his grace lordship the allpowerful mighty ruler of Conqerall
NOT a member of the UN (yea me!)

Unless you specifically say "You can't beat your prisoners" in the resolution, we can always call it something else.

yea, like Forcible Interrogation or something.

the following is just food for thought on Death penalty, which could indeed be construed as cruel and unusual, but I shall address it below. I am prone to forgetting many things, so if there are any basic facts I have wrong, please correct me.

well, think of it this way- what is the purpose of getting convicted and recieving a sentence? Is the purpose of the sentencing to punish the individual? to rehabilitate them? to force them to make restitution to another individual or community? You must ask yourself these questions before deciding the sentence.

First, from the sociology/ehtical standpoint, it is never right to pass sentence to punish an idividual, you must either rehabilitate them, force restitution, or both. Punishment is what you do to a 4 year old to help him understand something is wrong. To punish a 34 year old will simply either tell him that YOU think it is wrong, and/or will only make him want to not get caught. Sometimes not wanting to get caught will stop them from repeating the action, most of the time not. So, with adults and teenagers, one must rehabilitate them by at once isolating them from the community and trying to make them learn ethics/philosophy, or you could have them do community service, etc etc. These are mainly for petty crimes, including assault, theft, and economic crimes etc. With these crimes, it may still be possible to help bring them around to a better way of thought. However, with capital and serious offences, such as murder, rape, sexual molestation of children, etc, one faces an entirely different psychological perspective.

With these offences, it shows that their mental state and/or ethics/codes are so bad that it is impossible to determine wether or not they are still hazardous to the community as a whole, so one may not be able to simply rehabilitate them. So, perhaps either a much harsher form of rehabilitation/restitution should be forced upon them, or they should be punished/removed from society. A man finds out his lover had an affair with another man, and he kills the other man, and maybe even his lover. He gets caught and convicted. What should be done with him? do you really think that he could be released into society without fear for harm he may cause? Of course not. So one must either A: Remove him from the human race entirely, or B: isolate him entirely for the rest of his life.

And now we come to perhaps the most important point. What is the perpose of Life in jail or the death penalty? Under all other sentences, it is understood and accepted that they may still be of use to society. But if you sentence someone to life imprisonment or death, you are condemning him, saying that he has no more use to society, nay, he is even a detrement that must never be allowed to continue harming the society. So then, how is life imprisonment distinguishable from death at this level? What is the point of letting a man live, isolated from society, when all those in justice and all society have deemed him Unworthy of Sociable Life? You have deemed his entire life therefor of zero worth to society and meaningless. So, therefore, what is the point of imprisoning a man for life? It is simple- punishment. and since according to social/ethical standards, punishment is not an acceptable reason/sentence. The sentence must be either to rehabilitate or give restitution. So, if you are to deem a man Unworthy of Life, it is grossly corrupt to keep him alive. It is a philosophical fallacy to keep him alive, if your own ethical policies forbid punishment. If one allows punishment in the extreme cases when an individual or group is indeed found to be incapable of ever coinciding with other human beings, one must accept death for that individual or group. Hasn't the United States Congress decided twice in this 20th century that a group must be stopped, must be destroyed, is not worthy to continue to exist as it is? Indeed, for what other reason have they Declared war in WW1 and WW2, then to remove the target organizations from existance?

Thank you.

yea, like Forcible Interrogation or something.

the following is just food for thought on Death penalty, which could indeed be construed as cruel and unusual, but I shall address it below. I am prone to forgetting many things, so if there are any basic facts I have wrong, please correct me.

well, think of it this way- what is the purpose of getting convicted and recieving a sentence? Is the purpose of the sentencing to punish the individual? to rehabilitate them? to force them to make restitution to another individual or community? You must ask yourself these questions before deciding the sentence.

First, from the sociology/ehtical standpoint, it is never right to pass sentence to punish an idividual, you must either rehabilitate them, force restitution, or both. Punishment is what you do to a 4 year old to help him understand something is wrong. To punish a 34 year old will simply either tell him that YOU think it is wrong, and/or will only make him want to not get caught. Sometimes not wanting to get caught will stop them from repeating the action, most of the time not. So, with adults and teenagers, one must rehabilitate them by at once isolating them from the community and trying to make them learn ethics/philosophy, or you could have them do community service, etc etc. These are mainly for petty crimes, including assault, theft, and economic crimes etc. With these crimes, it may still be possible to help bring them around to a better way of thought. However, with capital and serious offences, such as murder, rape, sexual molestation of children, etc, one faces an entirely different psychological perspective.

With these offences, it shows that their mental state and/or ethics/codes are so bad that it is impossible to determine wether or not they are still hazardous to the community as a whole, so one may not be able to simply rehabilitate them. So, perhaps either a much harsher form of rehabilitation/restitution should be forced upon them, or they should be punished/removed from society. A man finds out his lover had an affair with another man, and he kills the other man, and maybe even his lover. He gets caught and convicted. What should be done with him? do you really think that he could be released into society without fear for harm he may cause? Of course not. So one must either A: Remove him from the human race entirely, or B: isolate him entirely for the rest of his life.

And now we come to perhaps the most important point. What is the perpose of Life in jail or the death penalty? Under all other sentences, it is understood and accepted that they may still be of use to society. But if you sentence someone to life imprisonment or death, you are condemning him, saying that he has no more use to society, nay, he is even a detrement that must never be allowed to continue harming the society. So then, how is life imprisonment distinguishable from death at this level? What is the point of letting a man live, isolated from society, when all those in justice and all society have deemed him Unworthy of Sociable Life? You have deemed his entire life therefor of zero worth to society and meaningless. So, therefore, what is the point of imprisoning a man for life? It is simple- punishment. and since according to social/ethical standards, punishment is not an acceptable reason/sentence. The sentence must be either to rehabilitate or give restitution. So, if you are to deem a man Unworthy of Life, it is grossly corrupt to keep him alive. It is a philosophical fallacy to keep him alive, if your own ethical policies forbid punishment. If one allows punishment in the extreme cases when an individual or group is indeed found to be incapable of ever coinciding with other human beings, one must accept death for that individual or group. Hasn't the United States Congress decided twice in this 20th century that a group must be stopped, must be destroyed, is not worthy to continue to exist as it is? Indeed, for what other reason have they Declared war in WW1 and WW2, then to remove the target organizations from existance?

Thank you.

I personally find it more disturbing that it has not even mentioned who will be deciding what is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Will my country's population be put at risk for some missing or unthought of language in the bill?
I do not feel this bill will do well. I can see the moral standing, but the chances and likelihoods of abuse are much to great. I do not like the idea of giving some unnamed person with a social agenda a blanket bill to prevent me from holding peace and order in my country and region. I plan on voting no if the wording does not change.

Dict. Alexander Arinelen
Temporary Spokesman for the region of Arinelen.

"Cruel and unusual punishment" is meaningless if it is a daily practice.

Honestly everyone. who is leading the opposition here? all i really see is people against this atrocious resolution. why are people voting for it!!! sounds like people are just reading this resolution, seeing it rather superficially for its initial good, and bandwagoning to ban "interrogation techniques." honestly, this resolution goes much deeper. the premise is nice and all, i'm not a sadist after all. but these people want to take away my right to beat the living crap out of someone for their atrocities. honestly, criminals break laws, terrorists spread terror and fear, as well as practice mass murder and intolerance. if there is no element of punishment in that, then how will they be deterred. what, they blow up my buildings, kill my people, and scare my nation and what, i'm supposed to use my national budget to house these people for the rest of their natural lives!!! feed them milk and cookies and not even be able to give then a slight slap. gimme a friggin break! i'm sorry, but tartakov has laws, and consequences for breaking them. again, the premise is good, however without amending the resolution as it stands, i will not support it. the path to oblivion is paved with good intentions. all this resolution does is weaken us collectively and allow these monsters to walk all over us. spread the word about this, if you know people that are supporting this drivel, then educatre them on the bigger picture. and in no way am i advocating cruel and unusual punishment either.

Delegates get more votes than non-delegates, so the numbers are distorted I think.

Could possibly be because those of us who are voting for it are too horrified by your inhumanity to bother arguing with you.

I happen to believe that all human life is of value, and all deserves as much compassion as I can give it. Therefore, I find it inconceivable and horrible to think that you would actually think torture has value. Especially since there's no evidence that torture gets you good information, let alone that it gets anything at all other than making your country look ruthless, barbaric, pre-modern and insensitive to the human cost of your actions.

Not that I think the resolution is very well-defined, and I wish it were. But I'm thinking in terms of the benefit to individual humans in thousands of nations when the resolution is applied. (ooc: trying to anticipate how this will raise my nation's status in the civil liberties department without smashing my economy to bits.)


Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

I say impliment it. I mean if the people dont like it what are they gonna do? Can't get me out of power and if they speak up I just have them killed.

Also, I say have them tortured for the fun and entertainment of me! :lol: