NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't see how these badly thought out bills keep getting accepted for debate. The current bill tries to ban torture, yet it doesn't even define what torture IS. When we capture an enemy in Haskarov, we ask them a question nicely, once, and if they refuse to reply, we shoot them; is THIS torture? I could understand the bill being passed if it tried to ban something that was at least tangible; but with all the ignorant UN members out there, this will probably get passed anyway.
For now I say that we definately need to vote AGAINST this badly composed bill, and push for better written ones in the future.

technically what you do is not torture its just askin them a question and then shooting them if they dont give you an answer BUT whats the point in shooting them because you wont ever get an answer out of them

Well no, i know it's not torture, but it could be considered immorale and inhumane, just as this bill is trying to ban the "cruel" part of torture. It isn't done to actually get information out of people, Haskarov doesn't torture, we just kill who we don't like, the question is just to see if they would give us enemy positions or plans, but we don't really care if they do or not.

If they don't talk right away, chances they won't respond later unless you do something to change their situation, like torture, blackmail, hostage, ransom, or just feed them really bad food (like the kind served in schools nowadays). Thus, shooting them reduces the resources required for their survival, and you waste less time on them.

However, for the main issue, I think that any proposal that says something to the extent of: "Torture doesn't exist, therefore we should ban it" should be immediately rejected, and the person should be sent back to high school to learn some speech techniques. Also, an interesting point was brought to my attention before, and it is probably a common one:
A lot of these UN proposals deal with inhumane and unnacceptable behaviors. Now, would contries that routinely practice such behaviors really be in the United Nations? Or would they be on the sidelines doing whatever they want and answering to no one? Thus, you can pass all the anti-torture bills you want, but chances are no one's going to listen, since those in the UN are more likely to never torture people anyway, with or without a resolution.

Well no, i know it's not torture, but it could be considered immorale and inhumane, just as this bill is trying to ban the "cruel" part of torture. It isn't done to actually get information out of people, Haskarov doesn't torture, we just kill who we don't like, the question is just to see if they would give us enemy positions or plans, but we don't really care if they do or not.

Whilst it may be immoral, what you do, it does not mean that you are making feel pain for an extended amount of time. You shoot them and they die almost instantly. That is not torture, more like murder/execution.

Another thing is that there are alot of issues presented to nations that have to deal with inhumane things, such as torture. If the bill is passed, will it make sure that no "cruel and unusual" options in our countries issues are available?

Another thing is that there are alot of issues presented to nations that have to deal with inhumane things, such as torture. If the bill is passed, will it make sure that no "cruel and unusual" options in our countries issues are available?

That's a very good point. I think that this therefore needs to be brought to the mods attention, including examples of what you are saying.

It's all a matter of perspective, If my country normally tortures people, then it is not cruel or unusual where I'm from, it is standard. Even if the bill passes, the bill is only for torture when trying to get information from people. Then countries simply torture people for commiting crimes, and any information they decide to give to us is entirely optional, it doesn't mean that their torture will stop either. This same law was passed in the medeival ages. Countries got around it by torturing poeple, then stopping and asking questions. That way people weren't tortured when extracting information. However if the person did not confess, they might be tortured again for various reasons.

The term torture is far too vauge to be usefull. Therefore, if this bill passes it really means nothing... but perhaps I shouldn't say that, because we "evli" nations like it that way.

The proposal's only hint at what it means by "torture" is breaking bones, blinding, and bruising. Bruising is neither cruel nor unusual. The other two are cruel and blinding is unusual so I have no idea what to vote. I suppose I'll vote against untill it is rewritten to be much more specific and then decide from there.

I think, in the replys that I have read to this thread, that all have failed to understand Haskarov's first statement. and that is the crux of the situation.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

This bill is juse vague enough that our people might use it to try and outlaw capitol punishment, or even prisons alltogether. I vote no! But, seeing as not a single past bill proposed to the UN that I've found so far has failed to pass, my vote is entirely pointless. Is a YES rubber stamp passed out with the UN membership packet?

This bill is juse vague enough that our people might use it to try and outlaw capitol punishment, or even prisons alltogether. I vote no! But, seeing as not a single past bill proposed to the UN that I've found so far has failed to pass, my vote is entirely pointless. Is a YES rubber stamp passed out with the UN membership packet?

This bill is just vague enough that our people might use it to try and outlaw capitol punishment, or even prisons alltogether. I vote no! But, seeing as not a single past bill proposed to the UN that I've found so far has failed to pass, my vote is entirely pointless. Is a YES rubber stamp passed out with the UN membership packet?

I find it funny how you are able to try and kill your enemys until you capture them. Then you have to give the 3 meals a day, proper living conditions, and can't touch them. If you capture an enemy to your nation, you should be able to interrigate that person however you wish. They are not very likely to talk if you give them a nice cell and feed and clothe them. But if you hook their nipples up to a car battery, you will have all the info you need before the day is over.

nice triple post.

double-post. Sorry about that.

Greetings:

Haskarov is quite correct - the resolution at hand gives no definition of what it supposedly bans, which makes following this resolution difficult at best, impossible at worst. One would think that such a measure could at least define "torture," but we are only given some broad examples (like "bruising"). This resolution is not worthy of approval. It should be voted down.

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

This bill is a travesty. If we want to put to death murderers, rapists, jaywalkers and random people in our nation, we damn well should be able to!

THis bill not only is vague, but also leaves itself, both through its wording and forced vagueness, open to interpretations later that actually make this bill more binding. This bill is a waste of our time and a serious afront to all nations.

Justinian ViaMorte
Head Justice of the Dominter Supreme Court

Others have addressed most of the issues with this resolution already, but there is something I've noticed about it that I haven't seen anyone say anything about; this proposal can even decrease people's civil rights in some circumstances.
Picture this scenario:
A criminal is perfoming some illegal action. The police aren't completely sure what he's doing, so they ask him about it before trying to arrest him.
Normally this would work out fine. They would manage to discover what he is doing and then stop him. However, if this passes, they will not be able to do that anymore. The moment they ask him anything, it technically becomes an interrogation, since the resolution does not define its terms.
Interrogate-To examine by questioning formally or officially
www.dictionary.com
The police can now no longer do anything to the criminal, as risk far too much. They could not risk even causing a bruise, since that would cause fines to be imposed upon their nation, and negate the purpose of the incarceration. The criminal can now go free since the police woud not be able to use any evidence gained in this situation against the criminal unless they never touch him, in which case he can run away unscathed.
Thus, the police are forced to enact a "fire first, ask questions later" policy that is destructive to civil liberties if they want to have any chance of actually doing their job(okay, it's a bit of a long shot, but it's true). For this reason alone, the bill should not be enacted, and this is only one of the major problems with it.

Of course it will be passed. People see this and think "Oh goody! no more torture! Now the world will be a better place!" without even reading it.

While there is no doubt, by anyone present, torture is a direct infringement upon personal rights, regardless of the alleged crime, the most prevelant statement to date in this thread is ...

"I don't see how these badly thought out bills keep getting accepted for debate. "

.. the very first statement made.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

I agree that the people who write up the UN issues need to take a few Rhetoric classes.

This issue is particularly poorly written. A real UN proposal is about the size of a small book. All terms have to be defined carefully, so that no loopholes can be found.

As of August 2003, there is a Universal Bill of Rights. Included in this bill is: "Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment." The terms of the proposal are so vague as to mesh entirely with Article Five of the already accepted Universal Bill of Rights and thus are rendered redundant. Its presence is a waste of both time and space.

I agree that the people who write up the UN issues need to take a few Rhetoric classes.

This issue is particularly poorly written. A real UN proposal is about the size of a small book. All terms have to be defined carefully, so that no loopholes can be found.

Not long ago, I tried writing up something very carefully and rigorously. Do you know what happened? I was over the character limit for UN resolutions.

It's impossible to put all the detail you could want into a proposal.

- Jordan

We of Chumba say this, torture as said is mostly used by states that control the masses through fear, or by military powers. We of Chumba deny the use of torture, a good interrogator can infict as much mental abuse as physical.


Envoy to the Emperor William VII of Chumba