NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit-this has been submitted


Having 2 strikes against me in the proposal department, and definitely not wanting to be ejected from the UN, I decided to put this out before all of you and see what anybody's thoughts on it are.

I haven't proposed it yet, but will if it passes this litmus test.

Torture Ban Amendment
Category: Human Rights
Strenghth: Significant

With the recent passage of the End Barbaric Punishments resolution, the need has arisen for further clarification of the following:

1-Torture
2-Who is protected by this resolution.
3-How it is determined a nation is at fault.
4-What a nation at fault shall be subjected to.

Torture can be defined many ways however, for the purposes of this resolution, we propose the following definition: It shall be considered that deprivation of the things necessary to continued existence (Food, Water, and Air), Sensory Deprivation (severe reduction of sight, sound, smell, touch and taste) or over stimulation of the senses (severe exposure to sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste), the intentional breakage of bones or physical mutilation including the intentional modification of bodily functions such as forced sterilization or the permanent modification of a detainee’s appearance such as tattoos, or scars from branding, or the use of psychological techniques to harm the mental well-being of a detainee is in fact torture. Further, the use of psychological techniques to cause a detainee to perform acts they would not normally perform including sexual acts or acts physically harmful to themselves, or to cause the detainee to believe their family and/or loved ones are in danger of similar treatment is torture. In addition, the use of hallucinogenic drugs to cause mental duress shall also be considered torture. Although not a requirement, sensitivity to a detainee’s religious affiliation and any food requirements caused by such affiliation would be recommended.

Persons protected by this resolution are detainees of any sort being held by a nation. This includes Prisoners of War as defined in the Wolfish Convention on POW’s, inmates in the criminal justice system, and patients in mental institutions.

Upon the UN receiving information that a nation is conducting torture under this definition, a team shall be sent by the UN on a fact-finding mission to determine if, in fact, the nation is at fault. The team shall report their findings to the UN within 30 days of their return from the nation in question.

Should it be determined that the nation is indeed at fault, said nation will be subjected to an immediate trade embargo that shall remain in place until it is determined they are no longer at fault. Refusal to come into compliance with this resolution within 60 days shall result in the immediate expulsion of said nation from the UN.

Recognizing that science is continually developing new technologies that could be used to torture people, a review of this resolution shall be conducted on an annual basis to ensure its effectiveness.

Excellent.

I'd point out that if anyone has a beef, it's going to be with the psychological torture bit; may want to elaborate on that. How about something like:

"Psychological torture shall be defined as causing the subject to experience psychosomatic pain by any method, threatening to perform acts of physical torture, threatening the subject's family, friends or other personal contacts, attempting to force the subject to perform an act s/he is not willing to perform, attempting to force the subject to witness an act s/he finds morally reprehensible, attempting to force the subject to violate his or her sexual mores, attempting to force the subject to recant a belief, and/or attempting to force the subject to experience delusions or hallucinations."

You picked up on the one area I thought was weak as well. Thankyou for your suggestions. I'll work on it some more.

Lady Tabitha

Two more little things: I think you can scratch the "(lack of light)" bit, because I think sensory deprivation is fairly widely understood and the definition agreed upon (I may be wrong), and anyway there are other senses that can be deprived.

Also, would you consider adding "or alteration of the subject's normal appearance or body function" after "or physical mutilation," for the purpose of eliminating those objections which might state that permanently removing, say, all of a woman's hair is not mutilation?

I'm just pitching thoughts here -- I really admire you for stepping up to the plate and putting together a very sound amendment so quickly. Cheers.

Ok-added some work to the psychological section-also added a clause allowing for review. I tried to highlight the chages so they would be easier to find, but that failed-grr!!

I thought about leaving the sensory deprivation bit out, but decided that it could be seen as a loophole, 'since it's not specified we can do it, kind of thing.

Fair call. I like the revisions. Let me know if you need help campaigning for support or anything; hopefully our region will have a delegate shortly and can back your proposal more effectively.


Cheers.

I need to think about the bodily function or appearance idea for a bit....my two older daughters have waist length hair-it would break their hearts to lose it, but I fail to see how it would endanger them physically or psychologically...of course, I might decide to torture anyone who cut off all of my girl's hair!!!....bodily function brings to mind the despicable practise of female circumcision-a practise that is well founded as a cultural practise---I am not sure I want to expand this amendment to deal with issues like that. I think that is a topic for another resolution entirely.

you may want to point out that torture would be any PERMANENT alteration to someone's normal appearance, not just an alteration.

Mm. Concurred, LOK. With the bodily function bit, I was also thinking about those forms of torture such as sterilising, forcing people to vomit until it corrodes their esophagi, removing organs, any form of mild poisoning (can you tell I've read too much Foucault?)....

The reason I wanted to clarify the bit with the hair is because some disturbing souls on this board seem to think that anything impractical is a target; and I'd just as soon not see them coming up with the hair idea or something more ominous by way of going through any loopholes. But, as a practical matter, you can't include everything in the bill, and people might object if they think you're protecting detainees too much (yes, yes, I know).


E

First of all-just to let folks know-I am editing my first post in this thread as we go-so if the conversation doesn't make sense, that is why.

Also-I further defined Sensory Deprivation. Really an awfull thing-too many prisoners have been subjected to it IMHO.

SIRVA-that makes sense.

Dendrys-now I see what you were getting at. Let me think on it a bit.

Yeah, I like what you did with the sensory deprivation bit; that covers it roundly.

Recognizing that science is continually developing new technologies that could be used to torture people, a review of this resolution shall be conducted on an annual basis to ensure its effectiveness.

Excellently done.

Hmmm-I have added a bit about altering appearance and bodily functions. I am still not happy with it, and here is why. In RL, I can recall a case in Denver several years ago where a woman was forced to be sterilised by the court. She was a drug addicted prostitute with several children and she had AIDS. Frequently, men who are convicted rapists are sterilised-but if you know anything about rape, you know it's not about sex, it's about power...all sterilising them does is force them to look for other methods.

This one is tough-if we leave in the part about forced sterilization, an arguement could be made that we are infringing on a nation's CJ system as it pertains to rapists or drug addicts with AIDS. I'm not sure this amendment can cover all of that-smile.

I think another issue is the torturer.

It is the act of the torturer that makes it torture.

Aside from that, it is a different "crime."

OP-elaborate a little, if you would.

Having 5 kids, I frequently feel tortured by them-but that is certainly not their intent!

I think you are trying to say something, though, and I would like to hear it.

I think police torturing people is a lot different than if someone you don't or are not supposed to trust tortures people.

OP-Lots of folks don't trust the police, and for good reason.

Personally, I have a lot of faith in my town's finest-at least when it comes to the issue of torture-and I have more faith in my nation's....but I can think of far too many instances of torture and abuse perpetuated by the police of my RL nation to see how there is a difference.

The following link goes to an article I have found absolutely mind-blowing...thought I would share it.

http://www.afsc.org/nymetro/criminaljustice/resources/CJSurvivorsManual.htm

I've added another clause regarding over stimulation of the senses.

I am trying to keep up with the changes so folks coming to this fresh can kind of follow it.

bump

OP-Lots of folks don't trust the police, and for good reason.

Personally, I have a lot of faith in my town's finest-at least when it comes to the issue of torture-and I have more faith in my nation's....but I can think of far too many instances of torture and abuse perpetuated by the police of my RL nation to see how there is a difference.

How can you guarantee what goes on behind closed doors?

Now, since it seems that there are no devil's advocates here other than OP, I'd like to add my two cents.

One problem I have with this proposal, and the idea behind it, is that it is (in my opinion) fit for an ideal world. However, if a group like the UN forces all nations in it to follow this, they are taking away a significant portion of each nation's power, which I do not believe an outside organization should be able to do. This, in my opinion, is like Big Brother. The UN is watching you, make sure you do what we allow you to do.

I do not believe that torture should be anything except a last resort, and only under extreme circumstances like mere days before half of your country is destroyed, or things like the murdering of innocents. Even a nation lead by a tyrant such as I does not appreciate the killing of my workers and laborers. And due to recent changes, dissenters no longer disappear from their homes at night, so even I don't kill my own subjects, so I'd really appreciate it if others don't as well. Err..back on topic...

I believe that, _only_ as a last resort, torture should be an option left to be allowed/forbidden by each and every nation, as it comes down to "What is the best way to go about this situation?" I believe the UN should pass a resolution saying that in any case except the most dire, where there literally is no other feasible option other than torture, should it be condoned. This could be the case of the two army officers who 'tortured' (not torture, imo, but they used unorthodox methods of questioning) terrorists in order to gain information that saved many lives.

One problem with any resolution about torture, is that you have to consider who is the victim. (being tortured). Are they everyday citizens who might/might not have done anything wrong? Or are they known and convicted terrorists from another country, who wish your nation harm? In the second case, I believe that they have should have no rights due to their desire to harm others. They forfeit their basic human rights the moment they ignore the basic rights of others, in my opinion.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on this, as I would prefer at least a mixture of realism and idealism. Yes, torture is an evil act, but sometimes evil means can achieve good ends.

If you look at the final version of the TBA, you'll discover there is all sorts of room for 'unorthodox' questioning. I think one of the roles the UN can legitimately play in world affairs is in the establishment of basic rules of behavior.

While TBA appears to be quite restrictive, it is not. For example, your less cooperative detainees could be subjected watching Barney for a few hours whilst they think about their posistion.

Thanx for your response-good to see some discussion.

Oh-and on the issue just who is being tortured....I think everyone has the right to expect a basic respect of them and the right to not be tortured under the definition I set out in TBA.

Ahh, but from my viewpoint, if you do not give respect, you should expect to get none in return. Thus anyone who wants to harm my labor force shall expect no mercy. They are violating the rights of my nation, thus they forfeit their own, and will be taken care of by my nation.

[OOC]
Also, you mention "I think one of the roles the UN can legitimately play in world affairs is in the establishment of basic rules of behavior." While I have no problem with basic rules of behavior, I believe that torture should never be considered basic behavior. Also, it is, unfortunately, a very efficient and effective way to gather information from unwilling captives, from what i've seen. I don't think captive spies would lie if they were tortured, because once i found out, i would make their torture even more painful and extended, to show them how i deal with mockery of my nation. Also, without torture to extract information, how do you propose nations treat captured spies? Without a method of punishing those who spy upon my nation and disrupt my balance, spies would be plentiful and arrogant, since they can't be touched. It's like diplomatic immunity. You hear of drunken diplomats that run over whole families and get away with it, because of diplomatic immunity. Personally, I would take that diplomat, and sentence him to death after making him (or his nation) pay an exorbitant amount of money to the surviving family, because 1) drunk driving is a crime, 2) murder is a crime, 3) he is an outsider, disrupting my way of life, and 4) he's probably a fat, decadent weakling anyway, and darwinism dictates the survival of the fittest. I'd treat spies the same way, except that i'd get as much information out of them as possible, as payback for them spying on me. That way, I don't need to send spies of my own into other countries, which would jeopardize their health. Plus, it's so hard to find good help these days, why would i send mine far away?

[IC]
Ideally, i'd like it to only exist in the most dire and extreme of situations, however given the option, I would gladly order the flogging of thieves in public, because they are disrupting my economy, and should be made an example of, so that other would-be-thieves consider other alternatives before thievery. Thus, I think the UN can suggest what it wants, however it should not take away the power of a nation to protect itself. If a nation outside of the UN is going to torture people and send spies and sabotage things in my nation, why should I expect them to follow my standards and play nice? I would treat them the way they treated me, with disdain and punishment.

Torture is okay as long as the UN is doing the torturing.

Akuma-I think you miss the point of TBA. The point is to set standards of treatment of detainees. Of course being detained is not supposed to be a stay at a 5 star hotel. Please read it through carefully. The detail lies in allowing nations to interrogate detainees but not to mistreat them.

OP-We disagree on that.

Treatment of detainees? The only people in my nation who are incarcerated are those who purposely disrupted the balance of life in my nation. The penalties for ruining things for many other people are very harsh, rising depending on the severity. Those from outside nations who come in to my nation and wish harm upon me or my workers shall receive no mercy, except from my goon squad. Said mercy usually leaves them screaming, but quite willing to talk.

[OOC]
Basically, its all nice and flowery if you treat detainees like people, however depending on the crime they committed, some of them (lots of them if you believe my nation's leader) deserve nothing more than to be made to suffer and pay for what they've done.

[IC]
Besides. other countries that send in terrorists...how well do you think they will treat prisoners of other countries? If we cannot deter them from sending people in to our nations, then the UN is merely crippling the defenses of every member nation, and is a weakness that will need to be fixed before we are besieged by warmongers and tyrants worse than myself.

Hmm...ok, first of all, let me remind you this is an Amendment to a resolution that has already passed. Under the resolution that has already passed, any nation can be denied even the ability to detain an individual as that could be seen as torture.

This Amendment attempts to set some basic guidelines that expand a nation's abilities to interrogate detainees.

OOC-detainees have basic human rights, as do we all.

IC-How my nation treats detainees is not determined by the poor behavior of other nations.

It was possible, when humans did not consider their bodies their sovereign property, to exact an eye for an eye and call it justice. But (to use a war analogy) we don't send phalanges of infantry out to stand in neat rows and shoot at each other anymore. We invent new artilleries, we change the venues of war, we change the way in which we fight to special operations or guerilla warfare. We don't try to match one to one and let some God or Fate decide which monolithic side will win. And in the same way, we don't deal justice by matching equal punishment to each crime.

For the record, I'd like to state that your analogy is considered far out in left field, and not very sound at all. You seem to be trying to convey the idea that "Justice" evolves as does warfare. However, I do not believe Justice depends on "some God or Fate [to] decide which monolithic side will win." And how do two sides facing off in battle have anything to do with my treatment of outsiders that are trying to ruin my nation? I do not intend to harm their countries, nor those people, unless they are harmful to me or threaten me or my way of life. That is equivalent to certain scenes in the movie "The Last Samurai." I would not be on the battlefield preparing for war, I would be in my chambers relaxing or just out and about, being a tyrant, and if they strike out at me, they deserve whatever punishment I see fit, because it is my nation, and I am sovereign here.

Have you seen the movie, Swordfish? That is a good portrayal of what I am doing here. I do not go out and randomly kill/torture people, however if they attack me or my way of life, then they will be punished. Severely. This will make an example out of them, so that no one ever wants to attack me because of the consequences. Justice is not the question for me, it is protecting my work force, my self, and my right to be a tyrant.

OP-We disagree on that.

That's just how the UN is designed.

For the record, I'd like to state that your analogy is considered far out in left field, and not very sound at all. You seem to be trying to convey the idea that "Justice" evolves as does warfare. However, I do not believe Justice depends on "some God or Fate [to] decide which monolithic side will win." And how do two sides facing off in battle have anything to do with my treatment of outsiders that are trying to ruin my nation? I do not intend to harm their countries, nor those people, unless they are harmful to me or threaten me or my way of life. That is equivalent to certain scenes in the movie "The Last Samurai." I would not be on the battlefield preparing for war, I would be in my chambers relaxing or just out and about, being a tyrant, and if they strike out at me, they deserve whatever punishment I see fit, because it is my nation, and I am sovereign here.

Have you seen the movie, Swordfish? That is a good portrayal of what I am doing here. I do not go out and randomly kill/torture people, however if they attack me or my way of life, then they will be punished. Severely. This will make an example out of them, so that no one ever wants to attack me because of the consequences. Justice is not the question for me, it is protecting my work force, my self, and my right to be a tyrant.

Perhaps I didn't make the analogy clear. If you believe that Justice is a matter of clear right and wrong, never changing, then when you argue with people about what justice is, you're essentially sending your monolithic phalanx out to fight a battle. You only have one idea of how things can be, and you keep bashing it up against other people.

If you choose to see justice as potentially negotiable, or you choose to allow some losses in exchange for other wins, or you are able to argue more than one side of an issue, then you are sending out multiple and diverse forces, which may be far better able to win your case for you.

And I cannot underscore enough that the "eye for an eye" is a perfect example of an idea of justice that relies entirely on a black-and-white concept. The problem with eye for an eye is that while you may be damaging your enemies in equal measure to their crimes -- where does that ever put you ahead? Do you really believe that it functions as a deterrent? You might want to look at deterrence statistics. When it was announced that videocameras were being installed in London streets to catch wrongdoers, crime went up.

[OOC]
About those videocameras, that is a single example, and do you have proof? While I do not mean to come across as completely incredulous, I am curious. As for arguing, its great if you can argue more than one side, however, we're talking about actuality, not sending armies out in argumental warfare. My nation's leader does not care if he can argue more than one side to an issue to others, because he thinks through the possibilities, and chooses what he believes is the best solution for his situation and his nation.
As for justice being never-changing, I do not believe that. I, however, am running my nation on the belief that the leader knows what is best, and makes the decision based on what he feels would be best for his country, and his vision of how people need to be lead. Leaders that are unsure or indecisive are weak, according to the leader of Akuma no Ie, because a leader that shows weakness loses a degree of trust from the populace, simply because they don't know if they can honestly depend on him to come through for them. I seriously don't see where you're trying to go with saying that if you can argue multiply sides to an argument you are sending out multiple and diverse forces...because that (imo) has absolutely nothing to do with leadership or leading a nation.
Eye for an Eye is not a completely black and white concept. If you apply it at the most base of levels, then yes it is. (someone slashes you, you slash them back) However, the theory behind it is what i'm using. If you've seen Swordfish, you will know where I'm coming from. If people hurt me, I will hurt them back, as much as possible without losing more of my laborers.

[IC]
Also, where in my argument do you find me saying that using Eye for an Eye puts me ahead? I don't care if it puts me ahead, because you should never think of Justice as something to do to put yourself ahead. This is simply about punishing those who hurt my work force. I don't care if it puts me ahead, because it puts them behind, which is what they deserve, for what they've done. As for deterrents, yes. I do feel that it deters people. If a thief is caught, and you flog him in public, how many people are going to steal if they have other options that they realize? If the people are homeless, then perhaps they feel they have no other choice, and must risk it, but even if it deters a single person, it is better than doing nothing, is it not? No solution will ever be perfect, so don't say that because it doesn't stop crime, it is pointless.
As for citizen-oriented lawbreaking, my citizens are barcoded, and I am able to figure out where they are at all times, thus this is a very nice deterrent to crime. I am more concerned about the outsiders that would come into my nation, that cause or want to cause harm to my populace. Barcoding doesn't deter that, and thus I must resort to more unorthodox methods. Such is life, and we must change to meet the demands of each situation.