Torture
Although I am not a member of the U.N. and a relatively new member to the game I see the need to comment on this proposal that I happened upon. Although torture is a violation of human right I believe it is a powerful deterrent for spies and it could help you get some important information that it is vital to national security that you may have otherwise not got throuhg the use of interrogation. How any nation preserves its security is its own business.
I don't believe this.
You people have no concept for pain, do you? No concept for history, either. Hahaha, how funny, how cute, a million fathers and brothers never came home in 1945 because they were out saving six million of my people from starving, being burned, being beaten, being utterly destroyed by people who thought torture was just something you do to whoever's rights you don't respect.
There's role playing and then there's the absolutely terrifying descent into inhumanity.
The thoroughly appalled
Nialle Sylvan
Torture, a difficult subject but of course it is completly necesary, in moderation. do we not have terorists. who would kill millions of people to remake the world in thir name. who would do anyting to protect their cause. that is untill you start to hurt them bad. this is completly the only way to extract infomation that will save lives, 100+ lives of course it is worth one life
Tell me one instance in which hurting a human being has saved a life. One. Tell me one instance in which actually paying attention to other humans, just keeping an eye on who you're teaching or living beside, wouldn't accomplish saving lives, and without forcing you or your people to stoop to degrading yourselves and making yourselves instruments of destruction.
Well... on the note of putting off spies surely any laws regarding torture would be superflous... any spies caught would presumably be disavowed by their soverign nations... such a disavowal would mean they were not recognised as citizens or people by any nation, and therefor not subject to laws nor protected by them... so bam! you can do what you want.
And as for punishments fitting the crime the bill proposes that nations cannot break bones, blind or bruise the criminals.. so all physical punishments out. For starters that seems to be the UN having too much control, and it also overlooks certain nations spiritual beliefs (in Islamic law a thief found guilty would have his hands cut off for instance). Does this proposal also include the removal of the death penalty fir serious crimes? I just think this proposal is too general to be voted through... its at least several drafts away from a finished article.
Torture is a fundamental violation of our most basic human rights. A violation that cannot be tolerated by any nation. We declare torture illegal so that others do not practice it against us. Is it possible that torture in soe cases could seem useful and necessary? Perhaps. But then who decides when? Who's values pervade the system to make such a determination that one's humanity can at this time be dismissed. There is no authority with the right to make such a decision. What are we to do allow every nation to make the determination on their own? Clearly there are many who are not qualified to do so. Perhaps there are none.
Also Dendrys there were a lot more then 1 million deaths on the side of the allies in World War II. In fact I believe that the Soviet Union lost something on the order of 20 million souls in that conflict.
Sorry about the historical tangent. The most important thing is that we all realize that torture is an uncaccptable practice that compromises the safety of us all, And Dendrys' example of torture being misused should certainly be a convincing argument against such practices.
Sorry, yes, Flip Phones, I was talking about the million who didn't come home to my IRL nation and I didn't specify which that was. You are quite right, there were tens of millions of Allied casualties all round.
Another point I'm not seeing addressed: the cost of torture visited upon the torturers. Have you ever met someone who had to engage in physical violence against other people for a living? They either begin to act in physically violent ways in other parts of their lives, or they go mad from living in a dichotomy.
There have been several books written on the subject, but one excellent example would be Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, which describes the progression in treatment of crime in Western civilisations, from the period in which people believed the body was a mere manifestation of the soul or even a burden upon the soul, to the period when we are trying to deter and reeducate the person and see the body as the property of the person. In this postmodern era, to damage another's body is to commit a crime against another's property, worse, against part of another's self; and this can do nothing but destroy the torturer in slow ways, undermining the torturer's own sense of being human.
I know, because I watched a man go quietly crazy while he tried to torture me to death.
Think before you post, people.
Nialle Sylvan
I think everyone's main issue with this proposal is not so much that it says torture is bad.. i think few people would argue against that. It is the vagueness of the resolution that seems to be putting people off. This resolution is too open to abuse by genuine criminals.
My objection is to the people who are arguing that it impinges upon their national sovereignty to ban torture, or those who argue that torture is good or necessary.
I agree that the resolution is ill-defined. But there are times when it's all right to sacrifice clarity in the short term so that, in the long term, there is a chance of saving lives.
Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.)
That's the substance of what the reolution forbids. It says you can't beat people when questioning them (don't torture during interrogation), and it forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The United States has a provision prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment and we still have the death penalty ( personally i disagree with it) clearly such a provision doesn't translate into no death penalty. Roberia said that you could not blind break bones or bind or bruise criminals if this res passes. This res only says you can't do that during interrogation. If someone were convicted of a crime and the punishment was physical, while i find this persoanlly objectionable, this resolution does not prohibit that. People should read this more carefully its not overarching at all. its very reasonable.
I agree that the resolution is ill-defined. But there are times when it's all right to sacrifice clarity in the short term so that, in the long term, there is a chance of saving lives.
But look to Vegas-di-mare's oppening post on why this bill does not work. It raises the very real possiblity of every criminal having a loop-hole in the legal system. They can call anything torture because nothing is defined. So every criminal, from burglers to pick-pockets to mass-murders and terrorists would be able to walk free... let someone amend the bill and i'll vote for it, until then it's unworkable
You know what? Sometimes it's okay for things to be unclear and used as a stopgap. Sometimes it's okay to save lives with a little grey area while you try to work out whether you can see it in black and white.
You may say that it is reasonable, Flip, but it is still poorly-worded and should be revised before being passed. Also, Dendrys, you say that torture has never been useful? What, then, happens when a spy is found and/or caught? Do you think they say "Oh darn, you caught me, here's the information you want" ? No, chances are they won't say anything if you ask them politely and offer milk and cookies. However, if they know that the remainder of their miserable life is going to be spent in absolute pain and agony unless they tell you what you want to know (at which point you will let them go, or end it for them), then they are much more likely to do so. If you had a terrorist in your possession, who knows about a plan to detonate a bomb in a large city in a few days, what would you do to get that information? Would you bribe him? Hey, terrorist, your friends are going to kill a large chunk of my nation, would you like some money? No, the pragmatic thing to do is do whatever it takes to get that information, since you would save countless lives at the expense of the life of a terrorist and known criminal.
As for this proposition being voted upon, an interesting point was brought up; This bill only says that you cannot touch witnesses with physical violence, however, what happens when it is a crime to hide vital information from the government, which is trying to keep its population above ground and not 6 feet under? In that case, the 'witness' now is a criminal, and fully subject to the law.
And as a last note, in my country, _my_ citizens are not allowed freedom, so why would i offer that ideal to those from another country, especially ones that are trying to harm me? Even in my description, it says that 'dissenters tend to vanish from their homes at night.' Why should I go around and treat foreigners better than my own pawns?
You know what? Sometimes it's okay for things to be unclear and used as a stopgap. Sometimes it's okay to save lives with a little grey area while you try to work out whether you can see it in black and white.
Thats my point.. i don't see this resolution as black or white or even grey. I see it as a well-intentioned statement that should be offerefd in a speach and not a proposal before the UN. It's a get out of jail clause for every criminal and every crime.
The constitution of the United States prhibits any cruel and unusual punishment and you no what we figured out what that meant. You couldn't possibly specify every possible scenario. the res would be millions of pages. The only place where physical punishment is explicitly forbidden is during interrogation which is widely recognized as a just law. Violent interrogation is torture.
I as a new member have also just stumbeled upon this. But I believe that torture is the only one we can correctly interrogate suspected terrorists. I believe that a UN resolution banning this would be incorrect and a violation of our as a nation right to keep our people safe and to keep our nation safe. If we can torture one terrorist they will speak. I agree it is a violation of human rights but it is as i feel a good way of interrogation.
The constitution of the United States prhibits any cruel and unusual punishment and you no what we figured out what that meant. You couldn't possibly specify every possible scenario. the res would be millions of pages.
I don't expect them to specify every possible scenario. My problem with this proposal is that it specifies NOTHING and is too open to abuse. As an addition i'm also a little concerned that the nation which proposed the bill (Checkoslovakia) seems to no longer exist. Am I the only one who looks at what the proposing nation is like before voting for a bill... i have no idea how the proposing nation was run on a day to day basis. Just like it is difficult to vote in an election purely for a candidate's politics and not for the candidate themselves, i need there to be a face behind a proposal before i can vote for them.
Do you think they say "Oh darn, you caught me, here's the information you want" ? No, chances are they won't say anything if you ask them politely and offer milk and cookies. However, if they know that the remainder of their miserable life is going to be spent in absolute pain and agony unless they tell you what you want to know (at which point you will let them go, or end it for them), then they are much more likely to do so.
What makes you think that will make them want to give you accurate information? What won't a person do to prevent or stop agony, or what agony won't a fundamentalist endure in silence if their beliefs tell them that they will be "rewarded" in "heaven"? What other options have you tried? Where is your proof that torture produces life-saving results? What will you do when the torturers get out of control? What will you do when the home nations of the people you torture declare you a ruthless an inhumane leader and declare war on you?
When I originally posted my message about torture I did it because I thought that the proposal was ill-defined, but also my post was a little ill-defined. I'm not advocating the torture of innocents, but when dealing with the terrorists of the world and they won't give up information then torture may be necessary for the purpose of national security. My intent was to never seem insensitive. The right to torture should be restrictetd, but not outright banned because as I said I believe it's up to individual nations to choose their methods of homeland security.
I agree that it is not specific enough. People might abuse the power of being able to torture people. I think that there should be guidelines set, to torture someone you should have to bring up hard evidence of what you think they did. If people abuse the power then there should also be guidelines set that if you do abuse it certain things will happen to you. thats what the resolution should state.
There are cases where "torture" has been usefull.
Currently in Iraq there have been two such cases. A British officer who punched a POW to find the location of a sleeper cell and an American officer who fired a gun in the general direction of a POW to make him reveal an ambush. In both cases lives were saved and this was well past the point of educating people not to place ambushes.
The torture worked. Both those officers are facing courts martial, as they should. Torture is illegal in both those armies.
However, it is worth noting that both officers stated that if put in the same position they would do it again. They didn't consider their careers worthy of loosing their men and women.
Systematic, barbaric, senseless infliction of pain serves no purpose: see Rodney King or similar incident. Occasionally scaring the quite litteral cr@p out of someone is quite effective, but the officer in question better be ready to answer for his actions.
Roberia it does specify something it specifies that during interrogation no ohysical violence can be used. That's very specific. When it comes to punishment for a crime it is more vague because as you've explained differing culture have differing perspectives on what is appropriate and what is cruel it in my mind has the appropriate balace of vagueness and specificity to work as an international resolution dealing with such a wide variety of regions and states.
In response to Akuma you're a despot and the UN should declare your regime in violation of human rights. You should be punished for your actions. Your government is an insult to humanity and your treatment of your own people should be prohibited by the UN.
Juanson, I won't dispute that torture can be effective and useful in dealing with certain people. The fact remains that it is not simply immoral but amoral to use it. In free societies we regularly trade our security for our freedom and this is a sacrifice we must accept. And in the end if we allow torture for the "proper" cases we will come to see that it will be used all over the place because everyone will interpret proper differently. We must ban torture. To justify it ever provides us with a slippery slope which may compel us to justify it more and more often for less and less pressing issues. Ben Franklin once said that he who would sacrifice liberty for security shall have neither. Our scarficing basic tenets of human rights for other shall in the end compromise our own human rights in the form of abuses of torture. This is why torture cannot be allowed.
You know what? Sometimes it's okay for things to be unclear and used as a stopgap. Sometimes it's okay to save lives with a little grey area while you try to work out whether you can see it in black and white.
Thats my point.. i don't see this resolution as black or white or even grey. I see it as a well-intentioned statement that should be offerefd in a speach and not a proposal before the UN. It's a get out of jail clause for every criminal and every crime.
Did you read the post that said how this doesn't apply to crime, just to interrogation?
And what is a UN resolution if not a guideline for member nations, a proposal for the nations to apply according to their own standards? The UN cannot enforce how we interpret the resolution. The UN IS an institution for speeches, for offering arguments, for writing down the ideas we come up with. It is not the government of your nation. If you don't like the UN resolutions, you can always leave, and so in the end, you are utterly sovereign.
Juanson, I won't dispute that torture can be effective and useful in dealing with certain people. The fact remains that it is not simply immoral but amoral to use it. In free societies we regularly trade our security for our freedom and this is a sacrifice we must accept. And in the end if we allow torture for the "proper" cases we will come to see that it will be used all over the place because everyone will interpret proper differently. We must ban torture. To justify it ever provides us with a slippery slope which may compel us to justify it more and more often for less and less pressing issues. Ben Franklin once said that he who would sacrifice liberty for security shall have neither. Our scarficing basic tenets of human rights for other shall in the end compromise our own human rights in the form of abuses of torture. This is why torture cannot be allowed.
*cheers*
"Maybe if we listened to history, it would stop repeating itself." -- George Santayana
Really. Would it kill some people to one day get the Ben Franklin quote right.
It's ESSENTIAL LIBERTY for TEMPORARY SAFETY.
The meaning of the quote was giving up control of the nation to a dictator, reference Rome going to Caesar or any of the other Dictators that brought about the end of the Republic.
The entire corpus of American Founding Documents is one string of giving up liberties for safety.
The entire body of Western Liberal Thought is about giving up individual Police Power to preserve the right to Life. Reference Locke's Second Treatise on Government.
My intent was to never seem insensitive. The right to torture should be restrictetd, but not outright banned because as I said I believe it's up to individual nations to choose their methods of homeland security.
Ronzania, Dendrys appreciates your statement.
However, we do think that it is completely within the UN charter, and in fact within the UN's mandate and obligation as an advocate on behalf of humans in the world, to forbid something that causes more problems than it solves. There are many, many ways to obtain information, and many, many things that could be done in the interests of security. Dendrys votes for the resolution because we believe that this world would be better off being forced to look for those alternate solutions.
Does that mean we want the UN telling us how to run our economy? No. But we do want the UN telling everyone to respect human rights. That's why we are in the UN in the first place.
It's all about the lesser of evils.
Respectfully to one who has shown respect,
Nialle Sylvan
Flip, you say that...
In response to Akuma you're a despot and the UN should declare your regime in violation of human rights. You should be punished for your actions. Your government is an insult to humanity and your treatment of your own people should be prohibited by the UN.
In response to this, I merely say that I lead my people by the hand, because I am the most well-informed person in the land, therefore I have the power to make the most well-informed decisions. Humans have shown time and time again that they require, _need_, strong leadership and guidance. Without that, society would degrade to a Lord of the Flies situation. I am here to provide the strength to keep people in line, and under control.
Oh, and I'm not a despot, I'm a dictator.
There would be no different interpretations of "proper" torture, if it were outlined in the proposal rather than just banning it outright.
Before, you said;
What makes you think that will make them want to give you accurate information? What won't a person do to prevent or stop agony, or what agony won't a fundamentalist endure in silence if their beliefs tell them that they will be "rewarded" in "heaven"? What other options have you tried? Where is your proof that torture produces life-saving results? What will you do when the torturers get out of control? What will you do when the home nations of the people you torture declare you a ruthless an inhumane leader and declare war on you?
Now, if my country is torturing someone to get information that will save lives, do you think as soon as they said something, that I will release them? I will make sure that the information they give is correct, otherwise it's back to the rack with them. Also, you mention fundamentalists. If said people will endure anything in silence because they will be rewarded in heaven, do you think that us torturing them or not will have any consequence on their behavior? Might as well make them pay for their actions. Also, fundamentalists are still human, and humans are weak. An ideal fundamentalist would do anything to further his cause, however a human fundamentalist can, and will, crack under pressure. And what do i do when the torturers get out of control? I would do the same thing I do when anyone stops doing their job correctly; Replace them. And what will I do when the home nations of the terrrorists declare me inhumane? I will laugh at them and say they started it, so bring the noise.
Also, fundamentalists are still human, and humans are weak. An ideal fundamentalist would do anything to further his cause, however a human fundamentalist can, and will, crack under pressure.
You're an idealist and you're not cracking under pressure.
I don't think it's humane to ask your people to torture anyone. People crack under the strain of having to inflict pain. You're hurting them as much as anyone else, and doubly hurting them by making them afraid that they'll soon be cracked AND unemployed. You say you lead your people, but where are you leading them? If you are so informed, where is your information that your method is anything less than another ill-conceived, self-righteous, psychologically unsound, unlasting and uncivilised fundamental faith in you?
My definition of "Proper" torture is so grusome and graphic that if I were to describe the details on this forum, Nation States would probably kick me out of the game. The word Torture is far too vauge in order to mean anything, as is the problem with most words in the english language today. Parents torture their children by not letting them open presents untill Chirstmas day. Iraque tortured athleats by spanking the bottoms of their feet with metal pipes. Torture should be defined in the bill, and carefully defined as well.
On an unrelated topic, I agree with the nation of Akuma on the subject. Torture, if no information is recieved, can sure make the general populace feel better when they realize that the terrorist who was responsible for causing death to hundreds of innocent husbands, wives, and children was tortured to death. If you were driving a car full of your freinds and cat crossed the road, would you hit and kill the cat, but keep you and your freinds safe, or would you swerve into oncoming traffic miss the cat and end up killing all your freinds as well as your self? If you can't stomach the things you must do for the greater good, then get out of the driver's seat.
My definition of "Proper" torture is so grusome and graphic that if I were to describe the details on this forum, Nation States would probably kick me out of the game. The word Torture is far too vauge in order to mean anything, as is the problem with most words in the english language today. Parents torture their children by not letting them open presents untill Chirstmas day. Iraque tortured athleats by spanking the bottoms of their feet with metal pipes. Torture should be defined in the bill, and carefully defined as well.
On an unrelated topic, I agree with the nation of Akuma on the subject. Torture, if no information is recieved, can sure make the general populace feel better when they realize that the terrorist who was responsible for causing death to hundreds of innocent husbands, wives, and children was tortured to death. If you were driving a car full of your freinds and cat crossed the road, would you hit and kill the cat, but keep you and your freinds safe, or would you swerve into oncoming traffic miss the cat and end up killing all your freinds as well as your self? If you can't stomach the things you must do for the greater good, then get out of the driver's seat.
I joined the UN because I believed that an international confederation of respected leaders could, in discussion, make decisions in the best interests of their people.
If you understand my refusal to allow torture as my decision to sacrifice my people, then you don't understand my refusal. I believe that in the long term, my people will suffer less if I pursue other avenues of obtaining information. I'm not talking about the cat in the road. I'm talking about the decision to hit your friend rather than the carload of small children you don't know.
"You're an idealist and you're not cracking under pressure.
I don't think it's humane to ask your people to torture anyone. People crack under the strain of having to inflict pain. You're hurting them as much as anyone else, and doubly hurting them by making them afraid that they'll soon be cracked AND unemployed. You say you lead your people, but where are you leading them? If you are so informed, where is your information that your method is anything less than another ill-conceived, self-righteous, psychologically unsound, unlasting and uncivilised fundamental faith in you?"
[OOC] You know, that first statement sounds like something a little kid would do, when told he is something that he doesn't want to be. "Oh yeah? Well..._you_ are a fool!" I am not an idealist, I am a cynical pessimist, if I was idealist, I would say that there should be no need for torture because people should not feel the need to kill and harm their own kind.
[IC] I could care less whether or not it is "humane" to do something. I am the leader, the most well-informed person in my nation. I am here to provide the leadership, the control, and the guidance that makes society exist, and not fall into disorder and chaos. Also, how am I hurting when i order the torture of a known terrorist? And how am I "doubly hurting" them? If "them" refers to my interrogationists, then they have no reason to be afraid of me unless they stop performing the job they were hired to do, at which point they are replaced, not unemployed.
As for leading my people, I lead them in the direction I want them to go. The economy is strong, the people are hard-working, and my nation still exists, therefore I believe that I am doing something correctly. As for me being "so informed," I mean that I know what goes on in my country, and I make decisions based upon that information.
Perhaps rather than merely attacking how I live my life and lead my country, you should attack my argument, since that is generally the point of debates, and Ad Hominem attacks are pitiful since they do not affect my stance. Regardless of how you feel for someone, you can not let that get in the way of questioning if their argument has merit or not.
And for the end part, perhaps we should stop the name-calling. I try to back up my behaviors with the reasons why I believe they work. Rather than just trying to trash my behavior, why don't you support your own? You have said twice now that I am "uncivilized," what do you mean by this? I have said twice now why I believe I am civilized. Perhaps you would be so 'kind' as to respond. Appropriately.
(all ooc)
Hm. Interesting. Actually, my point was to point out that it doesn't even take a fundamentalist weirdo to be utterly convinced that he is right; but if you choose to read that the way you did, I can't stop you.
Pessimism is a form of idealism. Anyone who imposes ideas on reality is imposing an idealism. I don't have my copy of Being and Nothingness here or I'd quote Sartre at you. I'll get back to you on that.
I'm not going to respond to you in character because, if I were in character, I'd be ignoring you. No offence. But I would reiterate that you can't hire people to interrogate and expect them not to crack. There are things the human mind is simply not designed to do, and torture people without losing one's sense of what is human and what isn't is one of them. Ask any psychologist, anthropologist or modern historian, or read some Foucault.
As for your continued existence proving you're doing something right... I would point out that humans are amazingly gifted at surviving. That doesn't mean you're doing something right; it means you're not doing enough wrong to kill them. I'd think you'd know that, being a pessimist.
Again, if you perceive my argument as Ad Hominem, that is your interpretation and I can do nothing about it; neither can I help you if you perceive my remarks as a personal attack on you or your nation. When you're willing to see it in other terms, call me. We'll talk.
[OOC] Okay, fine, maybe I was unspecific about Idealism. I meant that you seem to be seeing the world through a tinted glass, where everyone should be able to get along and not need torture to get things done. I'm perfectly fine with that. Hoping that every situation is ideal, was what I should have said.
I said ad hominem in response to: "If you are so informed, where is your information that your method is anything less than another ill-conceived, self-righteous, psychologically unsound, unlasting and uncivilised fundamental faith in you?" because this statement seems to have no purpose other than to attack me, personally, without regards to the actual argument that I am putting forth.
And since I am a pessimist, I could care less what philosophers think, or thought, because all that matters to me is what is happening right here, right now. The reasons are unimportant, unless they help you reach a good solution. And while I would like to believe that torture is not needed and thus should be banned, my nation does not endorse that view, and as such I take that stance.
Ah, see, there is our fundamental difference: I believe that you can't make good decisions unless you are informed about the reasons. If you don't believe that, then we won't agree.
I would hardly call my point of view rose-tinted, but then, you are only hearing my perspective on one issue, so perhaps that is why you perceive my words that way. Suffice to say that I don't think it isn't necessary to get information out of people; only that I can think of loads of other ways to do it, and that as a national leader I will choose one of those other ways as policy, because I believe that having torture as policy is destructive.
Rhetorical questions are rhetorical questions. I apologise for the hostility of the tone of it, but I don't rescind the question. As a point of fact, I still fail to see what your evidence is that instituting torture qua policy on the grounds that you know best would not constitute the sum of all of those things. *shrug*
It's all a matter of perspective, and you merely chose one that isn't compatible with my own. And I could care less about the hostility of the tone, I would merely prefer to argue about something, and not trade insults back and forth since that accomplishes even less than we have in these past however-many minutes.
On-topic, but still OOC... Yes there are other ways of going about information-extraction, however it is the policy of my nation to be pragmatic, cold, and efficient. Torture will get the job done, fast, and it will provide a sense of "justice has been served" at the very least. For example, if thieves are flogged in public, my nation's leader would applaud because it shows the populace who is in charge, and that I do not care for those who would disturb the normal order of society. I do not flog anyone I feel like, because that is psychotic, but if someone has done something to disurb the already-stressed balance of life in my nation, then they deserve to be made an example out of. That is simply how I am roleplaying this nation. Label me anything you'd like, but that is how things are done in Akuma no Ie.
Akuma, it is your choice to perceive the hostility. I could tell you that I am apologising that the words were lined up in a way that it was possible for you to take it personally, and that any hostility toward you qua individual was not intended, but you don't seem interested in listening to that. Then again, perhaps it is unfair of me to assume how you would react; I certainly do not appreciate that you are assuming my actions have an intent that they do not. I asked a question I think is relevant: how do you prove that you are not doing those things? If you would rather respond to the question as to an attack you will not answer, then that is your choice.
I still haven't seen a good argument for torture qua policy. I still haven't seen a good argument for cold, efficient pragmatism as a way of leading a people, either. I don't think my way is less effective, and I don't see that my way has the potential human cost, the potential damage to the sense of purpose, hope and worth. Your arguments that you would not abuse the power don't convince me, because the power, once unleashed, is far too easily abused, and you cannot micromanage a nation of millions; you simply don't have time. That's not an attack; it's a statement of physical reality.
"How do you prove that you are not doing these things?"
Frankly, i'm not sure what you mean by that. If you would care to explain, I'll either find a logical response, or i'll spout off some more tyrannical statements. Now, as for some of the other things you've said, as for you've not seen a good argument for "torture qua policy"...now, for those of us who care very minimally about philosophy other than passing the gen.ed credit it was, would you care to explain? There have been several arguments I consider 'good' about why torture can be an effective means to an end, in certain situations. Not every situation, because that would be psychotic, and no one would stand for it, hopefully.
As for my cold, efficient pragmatism, I never said that it was _the_ way to lead a country, nor should I need to defend my policy. It is simply that. My policy. That is how things are done in Akuma no Ie, and I do not encourage others to take this stance, nor do I discourage it. I don't say that your way is less effective, other than saying that my leader believes you are soft, since his view of humanity differs from your own. However, just because he views you that way does not mean he believes your way of life is inefficient, or useless. As for the 'potential human cost, the potential damage to the sense of purpose, hope, and worth', my leader doesn't see these as very important at all, thus you saying that your way is better because you view those, well, that's a personal belief, and that's fine. However, it is very hard to evaluate other nations based on your own beliefs, because oftentimes our judgement is clouded by emotions.
As for the abuse of power, I never said that I wouldn't, I just said that I feel no reason to not use the power I am given when it is called for, and if someone disturbs the fragile structure of life in Akuma no Ie, punishment is called for. As for micromanagement and a nation of millions, I'm not sure where that came into play either, unless you mean me replacing all of the interrogationists who have outlived their usefulness.
Whoa whoa whoa here...we are all getting far too philisophical! Let's sit back with a cup of coffee and discuss the bare essentials of this debate. I would never consider torture to be the first method to use in getting information, however, if I can save the lives of my people by using it, then so be it. If someone is trying to attack my country, and kill my people, then why consider him/her to have human rights at all? However, I would agree that this should be only used in dire circumstances, against avowed enemies of my nation. Strict rules should be used in the application of torture, and if possible, no permanent serious damage should be done to the MENTAL capacity of the enemy. So forget all the idealistic conversation, let's get back to practicality.
:twisted: :roll: :? 8)
I like the word qua. I also like the word wubbles. I also would like to re-point out that anything could be considered torture. So before going on with this argument we should have some sort of consensus about this, otherwise this argument is somewhat pointless. (I said somewhat since it does have some philisophical value.)
(Maybe it has been defined before, frankly some of the longer posts I just skimmed over.)
I don't believe this.
You people have no concept for pain, do you? No concept for history, either. Hahaha, how funny, how cute, a million fathers and brothers never came home in 1945 because they were out saving six million of my people from starving, being burned, being beaten, being utterly destroyed by people who thought torture was just something you do to whoever's rights you don't respect.
There's role playing and then there's the absolutely terrifying descent into inhumanity.
The thoroughly appalled
Nialle Sylvan
Ok this is the wrong concept to use. The reason that we went to World War 2 (America) is because of Pearl Harbour. The reason England and France declaired war on Germany was because of Poland being invaded. The truth is that noone accually entered the war because of eithnic clenasing. Though I have to admit an example is Kosovo. If people did know about the actions that Germany was taking angainst those of the Jewish religion I am sure a war would of eventuated. Though one thing I want to point out is the fact that there is a idfference between Discriminating angainst a race and interrogating someone. This is regarding physical violence towards people in your countries custody if I read the proposal. They cite the fact about terrorist etc. So when it comes to terrorists shouldn't a nation be allowed to torture a terrorist for information. With refrence to where it has saved somoenes life. Well now and then terrorists are stopped because of information gathered form people, they are able to stop terrorists commiting crime. So in this case if I was a UN delegation I would want a clause that would abolish terrorists rights in this matter then I would vote for the banning of it but if there isn't then the UN is almost going outside its boundries with this issue and could end up some natoins leaving!
The trouble with this resolution is that it infringes on every aspect of the purity that is the nation state.
A country has its government, its system of laws, and ideals because those objects are exactly that: theirs. When a country chooses something it is because it feels it is in their best interest. For example states join the UN because they feel that it is in their own best interest to support the international community.
So when a resolution infringes on that ideal then it infringes on the idea of the soverign nation state.
My question to each of you then is what next? Will more vague resolutions come into affect disrupting the very idea of a police force? After all many states use it for evil purposes. We cannot be too sure. And some governments are evil like torture. After all it is these governments that enact the torture. Why dont we just eliminate the governments?
Sovereignty is something that the United Nations needs to uphold. The UN is only as strong as its members, and with resolutions like these only one option is left available.
Leave the UN.
So I leave everyone reading this resonse 2 options.
Either vote against the resolution, and promote the back bone of the UN.
Or Vote for the resolution and watch everything that the international community has worked for fall to pieces.
Those are your options. I hope each of you think about it.
The delegate from Hanszen
The trouble with this resolution is that it infringes on every aspect of the purity that is the nation state.
A country has its government, its system of laws, and ideals because those objects are exactly that: theirs. When a country chooses something it is because it feels it is in their best interest. For example states join the UN because they feel that it is in their own best interest to support the international community.
So when a resolution infringes on that ideal then it infringes on the idea of the soverign nation state.
My question to each of you then is what next? Will more vague resolutions come into affect disrupting the very idea of a police force? After all many states use it for evil purposes. We cannot be too sure. And some governments are evil like torture. After all it is these governments that enact the torture. Why dont we just eliminate the governments?
Sovereignty is something that the United Nations needs to uphold. The UN is only as strong as its members, and with resolutions like these only one option is left available.
Leave the UN.
So I leave everyone reading this resonse 2 options.
Either vote against the resolution, and promote the back bone of the UN.
Or Vote for the resolution and watch everything that the international community has worked for fall to pieces.
Those are your options. I hope each of you think about it.
The delegate from Hanszen
This torture is to stop spies from being hurt, not a mass genocide. The Nazis killed people because they didn't like them, not because they were with holding information of national security.