NationStates Jolt Archive

I humbly ask all delegates to go look at this proposal. There are several proposed amendments to the End Barbaric Punishments act in the que however, I believe this amendment solves many if not all of its flaws.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Lady Tabitha

Both as a way to keep this thread relatively in the public eye and to make it easier for delegates, here is the text of this proposal:

Torture Ban Amendment
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Little orange kittens
Description: 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.

Again-to keep this in the public eye--bump!

thanks :roll:

Bump-again. Voting ends on TBA tomorrow, Delegates. Thanx.

Hey LOK - shaped up very well. Cheers. I'm still trying to make delegate so I can vote for this!

Thanx, Dendrys. Even if it doesn't make it on this round, I will try again. I think it's important that we be willing to rework resolutions that are flawed into something that actually works.

Yes -- not only for the sake of clarifying the law and improving how it is applied, but also for the sake of learning -- that law is not, like the ten commandments of Moses, set in stone by G'd. It is an organic city, built by people, in which people must live, and if one section was ill-planned or falls into disrepair, it is our duty to make it whole again.

[OOC]
This is a much better proposal than the one that, unfortunately, passed, but what exactly are POWs as defined by the Wolfish Convention? Could you either explain or point me in the right direction?

I'd still like to have the UN proposals be more of guidelines and international regulations, rather than restrictions and mandatory orders. I'd like to have some power over my nation, and each nation is indeed different, with different circumstances. The problem with such an organization as the UN is what happens if one nation's situation dictates that they use unorthodox and/or unaccepted means to accomplish something? Would it be better for them to quit the UN, or push for a change that most likely would never occur?

[IC] A nation should have the power to choose what is best for itself. If, by joining the UN, we are giving up all of our power, then what is the point of joining the UN? To force your beliefs on others? I am fully in support of guiding the populace and being a strong leader, however I believe that if a group of people is in charge, the difference of opinions will fall apart and ruin what was once working and stable.

Sure-the Wolfish Convention is a bit long to print here but go to the UN page. Below the current resolution being voted on is a link to Un Resolutions throughout History. Click that. Just over 3/4 of the way down the page is the Wolfish Convention.

IC-

It is a struggle at times, but in joining the UN we only give up some of our power over our own nations. It is incumbent upon us as members of the UN to keep the UN from gaining too much power. That responsibility falls upon each of us as members. Too many of us wish for an overseeing power to take the burden off our shoulders.

This link will take you to the other thread about TBA

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103423

There is some interesting discussion regarding TBA there.

The Torture Ban Amendment is in its last day of the approval process.

That's the nature of the social contract, really. Individuals give up some freedoms in exchange for some protections, some agreements as to how their rights, roads, and rules of business will be administered. The individuals must also work to keep government from taking away any freedoms they don't want to give up; but not everyone will be satisfied all the time.

The same is true of the UN. We join to take part in an international discussion about laws and practices of other nations; we join to take part in international conventions to protect citizens, their rights and those things on the earth that we do share -- the environment, political boundaries, scientific development, and international criminal law. In order to deal with these concerns, we do have to give up some liberties, but we do not have to give up our sovereignty; we always have the option not to participate in international resolutions, not to participate in the UN.

There just aren't any black and white solutions to the problems of freedom and law. There are just greys and more greys, and you have to decide how grey things look to you and hope that your decision was well-informed enough to prevent bad things from following. *shrug*

I am going to be relentless and bump this again. I really think this amendment deserves a shot at being debated by the General Assembly. Currently, it has 30 approvals.

I support the clarification of the barbaric treatments resolution.

I always like ideals, but I like clear ideals even more.

As soon as I figure out the rules for resubmitting a proposal, this one will be back-thank you once again to the Delegates who did approve the Torture Ban Amendment.

We need to be realistic about our ideals.

I think this matter should be for the Governing body to descide, to some yes it may seem cruel and unusual, but how else are you going to get someone to tell you info that you need w/o tortuting just enough to scare them....i mean heck it should be up to the nation, but this issue was already resolved so i dont think i have much say anymore....

[OOC]
Okay, a slight interpretation. The Wolfish convention on POWs is exactly that, it dictates how prisoners of war and/or armed conflict must be treated. Any citizen of a country engaged in an armed conflict with your own (country) must be treated a certain way. The torture proposal that was (unfortunately) just passed dictates that you cannot harm witnesses. This proposal says,

"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."

So this proposal gives the same rights (yes rights, since the Wolfish Convention has been passed and approved) that prisoners of war have to mental institute patients and inmates *in* *the* *criminal* *justice* *system*.

Let me spell it out. While you cannot torture citizens of a country you are at war with, or having skirmishes with, or merely exchanging highly-explosive grenades (presents) with, you are still able to torture anyone that does not belong to a country that is at war with your own. If a spy is caught (spy, not citizen, witness, or prisoner of war), will their home country claim them as their own? Chances are, not officially.
Therefore, they are not a citizen of that country, and they are at your mercy. As for terrorists, well now, they aren't prisoners of war, since there is no war between your country and whatever country they happened to be in last, and they are not witnesses, and they are not part of the criminal justice system, therefore you have free reign as well. Now, it would please me greatly if there was NOT a bill that covered these loopholes aforementioned, because that would just leave nations defenseless, and i would have no choice but to leave the UN and attack their then-defenseless nations for fun and profit.
If I wasn't an evil nation led by a Kusanagi Noakusei (Tyrant), I would accept this proposal since it does not cripple a nation, defense-wise, and it promotes humane treatment of mental patients and inmates, and whatnot. However, even as an evil nation it doesn't screw you over, since you are still able to torture people for information. If they are indeed a prisoner of war, or a citizen of a nation that is at war with you, then you can still torture them, you just have to do it carefully and politically. And frankly, the last bill that was passed is a joke. It only protects witnesses. Now, terrorists aren't witnesses since they haven't witnessed a crime, they merely know about future events, which means they are a common criminal, or a threat to your nation. As for criminals, well, they aren't witnesses, since they're criminals.