NationStates Jolt Archive

How does this sound so far?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHEREAS Extraordinary Rendition is defined as an extra-judicial procedure which involves the sending of criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or alleged supporters of groups which the Government considers to be terrorist organizations, to countries other than their own for imprisonment, interrogation and possibly execution, this ban is proposed to prevent suspects being sent to other countries in order to avoid violating UN laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture.

Reports describe suspects being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions.

Proponents of extraordinary rendition argue that torturing terror suspects, however distasteful, is necessary to help prevent further terrorist attacks, which may only be a matter of hours or days away. Critics argue, however, that such practices are unethical, unconstitutional, and skirt civil rights laws.

Aside from ethical issues, pragmatic reservations have also arisen about the practice. For one, it appears that while torturing a suspect frequently results in a confession, the confessions tend to be useless; many suspects will say nearly anything to end their suffering. Some investigators argue that better results are achieved by treating suspects with respect, allowing them due process, and arranging plea bargains with defense lawyers.

1. WHEREAS Black sites are secret jails in foreign countries operated by other governments for terror suspects, all Black Sites shall be banned from their creation and/or maintenance, and all current sites shall be sealed and destroyed to prevent further misuse.

2. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

3. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

4. All governments shall ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are held in officially recognized places of custody, and that accurate information on their custody and whereabouts, including transfers, is made promptly available to their relatives and lawyers or other persons of confidence.

5. WHEREAS an act of enforced disappearance is any act which places the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law and inflicts severe suffering on them and their families, all such enforced disappearances shall constitute a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, inter alia, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

WHEREAS Extraordinary Rendition is defined as an extra-judicial procedure which involves the sending of criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or alleged supporters of groups which the Government considers to be terrorist organizations, to countries other than their own for imprisonment, interrogation and possibly execution, this ban is proposed to prevent suspects being sent to other countries in order to avoid violating UN laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture.

Reports describe suspects being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions.

Proponents of extraordinary rendition argue that torturing terror suspects, however distasteful, is necessary to help prevent further terrorist attacks, which may only be a matter of hours or days away. Critics argue, however, that such practices are unethical, unconstitutional, and skirt civil rights laws.

Aside from ethical issues, pragmatic reservations have also arisen about the practice. For one, it appears that while torturing a suspect frequently results in a confession, the confessions tend to be useless; many suspects will say nearly anything to end their suffering. Some investigators argue that better results are achieved by treating suspects with respect, allowing them due process, and arranging plea bargains with defense lawyers.
This whole section sounds like an article, not a resolution. The references to "the reports" and so on also come across as being real-life references, which are not allowed. I think it needs to be condensed, into one clause providing a definition, and one or two clauses pointing out why ER is wrong.

1. WHEREAS Black sites are secret jails in foreign countries operated by other governments for terror suspects, all Black Sites shall be banned from their creation and/or maintenance, and all current sites shall be sealed and destroyed to prevent further misuse.
Well, this provides a huge loophole: charge them for something other than terrorism, and you can keep the black site. I think this needs to apply to all suspects; further, I think the line about sealing and destroying black sites is a step too far. Often, they might simply be "buildings" - you don't need anything special from the building to conduct torture in it. So long as they are no longer used for torture, I don't think they need be destroyed.

In fact, wouldn't do so have ramifications for criminal proceedings against those involved?

2. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
"they", not "he". I'd prefer if this was simply "Every State Party has the right to refuse to..."

4. All governments shall ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are held in officially recognized places of custody, and that accurate information on their custody and whereabouts, including transfers, is made promptly available to their relatives and lawyers or other persons of confidence.
For the moment, we're ok with this, although we'll think about cases where we might need to keep such information secure in the interests of security.

5. WHEREAS an act of enforced disappearance is any act which places the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law and inflicts severe suffering on them and their families, all such enforced disappearances shall constitute a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, inter alia, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I think this is already banned by the Freedom of Conscience resolution; I'll check.

This is a generally well-written resolution and, with Gruenberg's corrections, it has my support.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Well written, thoughtfully constructed and very interesting. We would agree with our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg that it could stand some paring down.

And the representative of Gruenberg is correct. "Disappearance" is covered in the "Freedom of Conscience" resolution. The author needs to review that one.

This definitely has the makings of a resolution that would have our support.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I should add that Gruenberg will not be supporting this proposal. We like torturing people. We are however happy to provide comments in the draft stage.

The proposal only bans secret torture. It does not prevent any kind of punishment, it only protects a little bit of due process.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

It is bad form (and not very effective) to copy parts of a wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition) verbatim into your proposal. The research does you credit, but you should adapt it to legislative format and to the NS reality.

It is bad form (and not very effective) to copy parts of a wiki article verbatim into your proposal. The research does you credit, but you should adapt it to legislative format and to the NS reality.

Not to mention there is already a resolution banning all forms of torture, and in my personal, torture hating opinion, it is superior to this one. However, given the possibility of he other not passing, keep working on this.

Not to mention there is already a resolution banning all forms of torture, and in my personal, torture hating opinion, it is superior to this one. However, given the possibility of he other not passing, keep working on this.
How can a proposal that does something completely different be "superior"? "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" (which, by the way, is crap - how does your torture hating opinion reconciling permitting us to use electrodes on genitals?) is a ban on torture. This is a ban on sending suspects to other nations for torture. There is no comparison to be made: though they deal with a related issue, they're entirely different proposals.

I would suggest you read the Habeas Corpus, Definition of Free Trial and Wolfish Convention on POW resolutions to ensure that you are neither restating nor contradicting passed UN resolutions.
As a result of Habeas Corpus, prisoners must be held either under its terms (and then the terms of Definition of Free Trial), or under the terms of the Wolfish Convention.

It is bad form (and not very effective) to copy parts of a wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition) verbatim into your proposal.Not to mention illegal.

1. WHEREAS Black sites are secret jails in foreign countries operated by other governments for terror suspects, all Black Sites shall be banned from their creation and/or maintenance, and all current sites shall be sealed and destroyed to prevent further misuse..


So if we have an established prison nation set up already that is known and clearly noted as a prison that we send criminals to... whatever their crime.. Then we have no so called BLACK SITES.. or secret jails in foreign countries. We are simply alligned with a foreign country to handle the retention of our criminals that must serve time in a prison.

Thus does this apply to such a contract for services between two nations; us and one outside the UN..? As there is no secret what their function is in our region for us..

OH! We try Terrorist not as such but on violations of having illegal weapons, false documents, or a host of other crimes and pack them of to Rockmoor Prison.. not as Terrorist but for those crimes on the books they are found guilty of violating.. as we have no law on terrorism.. Just murder, rape, weapons possession, being in our country illegaly, and such...

criminal suspects, Also they are no longer CRIMINAL SUSPECTS if they take the trip to Rockmoor Prison so does this still aplly to them.. As they have been to court tried and found guilty and sentenced based on evidence presented to prove them without dought guilty of their crime.. So they are no longer suspects....

1. WHEREAS Black sites are secret jails in foreign countries operated by other governments for terror suspects, all Black Sites shall be banned from their creation and/or maintenance, and all current sites shall be sealed and destroyed to prevent further misuse.

I'd strip the reference to terror suspects. There are a lot of reasons one might be sent to a black site for interrogation. Suspicion of terrorism is just one of them.

Honestly, considering I have no experience in legalease, and considering some of the proposals that have been passed in the UN that lack considerable detail and are quite informal, I wanted to see what the reaction would be from everyone if I took the wording and legalease from the actual laws.

Now I have realized that in the end (as it is with all politics) it's all just a popularitiy contest anyway, I can go back and rewrite my original proposal and see what happens.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

There is nothing wrong in using wiki to make sure your definitions make sense, etc. But you should try to break your argument into short, clear statements, rather than an essay. Wiki paragraphs are not good for that.

This is not a popularity contest; many of us are being critical but would support the idea in principle. It does need some work.

Suggested simple version...

The United Nations,

NOTING that some UN Resolutions limit the ways in which member-nations' governments,and their agencies,are allowed to treat people within their own jurisdictions,

DECLARES that member-nation's governments, and their agencies, are not allowed to move people into non-member nations with the intention that those people would then be treated in any way that would be illegal within the member-nations.

St Edmund's one is much clearer, and easily gets around any possible contradiction/restating of Habeas Corpus, which I believe would be this proposal's main legality issue.

And it doesn't cover any of the activities of Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd., which, of course, is a private entity. We like it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Wow. St Edmund, that is truly impressive. You actually summed up that huge passage that started all this into two concise, effecient and effective points. If it were submitted I might oppose on principle (Kivisto does have some interesting ways of dealing with our problem criminals), but I would be no less impressed. Honestly, well done.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

If you leave the wording as is, then I will have to vote against htis propsal.
It's too fluffy, there are too many loopholes and the concept simply is not lucid enough.
Besides, I really don't care if criminals are sent to other countries for trial. If terrorist A commits a crime in country B and country B is not his/her homeland, then I think country B has the right to try him/her.
I'm not terribly concerned about the rights of convicted criminals.
You do the crime...

--Rooty

If you leave the wording as is, then I will have to vote against htis propsal.
It's too fluffy, there are too many loopholes and the concept simply is not lucid enough.
Besides, I really don't care if criminals are sent to other countries for trial. If terrorist A commits a crime in country B and country B is not his/her homeland, then I think country B has the right to try him/her.
I'm not terribly concerned about the rights of convicted criminals.
You do the crime...

--Rooty


You're not actually paying attention to the conversation, are you?

The issue isn't whether country B gets to try them, it's whether country B gets to send criminal from country A to non-UN country C to potentially face torture or other acts that have been banned in the UN.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

The issue isn't whether country B gets to try them, it's whether country B gets to send criminal from country A to non-UN country C to potentially face torture or other acts that have been banned in the UN.


In my view, that is the same thing.
If a criminal commits an act in whatever country, UN member or not, I feel that it is perfectly ok for them to be tried in the country where they committed a crime.
As far as torture goes, that is actually a separate issue. In the real UN constitution, sending anyone to a nation where they might be tortured is covered under the torture legislation. Since there is already a thread on banning torture, your concern regarding it should be lodged there and not here.


--Rooty

In my view, that is the same thing.
If a criminal commits an act in whatever country, UN member or not, I feel that it is perfectly ok for them to be tried in the country where they committed a crime.
As far as torture goes, that is actually a separate issue. In the real UN constitution, sending anyone to a nation where they might be tortured is covered under the torture legislation. Since there is already a thread on banning torture, your concern regarding it should be lodged there and not here.


--Rooty


You could have just said that you weren't reading. It would save me having to repeat myself. The issue isn't where the trial is. It's the other stuff. What you referred to as a separate issue is the issue. The idea is you shouldn't be allowed to send people to non-UN nations to have stuff done to them that's not legal in UN nations. The ban on torture would regard what happens IN UN nations. This discussion is about sending them OUT of UN nations to have that stuff done to them. Try to keep up.

Considering the idea of renditions to be illegal is alright with us. We pay criminals to do renditions. If they are caught we send all parties to jail. Otherwise we see no problems with this. Making renditions illegal will not stop them. Because this legislation does not deal with the concept of plausible deniability, i.e. using a criminal or corporate bodies outside of the law to do the renditions it is useless.

Considering the idea of renditions to be illegal is alright with us. We pay criminals to do renditions. If they are caught we send all parties to jail. Otherwise we see no problems with this. Making renditions illegal will not stop them. Because this legislation does not deal with the concept of plausible deniability, i.e. using a criminal or corporate bodies outside of the law to do the renditions it is useless.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich leans over and whispers to his assistant.

Plausable deniability, eh? This one might know too much. Contact Rekooh. She'll want to know about this.

I thought extraordinary rendition was a term of praise for an actor playing a role really well...

1. WHEREAS Black sites are secret jails in foreign countries operated by other governments for terror suspects, all Black Sites shall be banned from their creation and/or maintenance, and all current sites shall be sealed and destroyed to prevent further misuse.Automatic opposition, as this is yet another case of a frustrated U.S. (?) liberal trying to use the NSUN to correct the problems he sees in his own country. First the D.C. voting act, then the military campus recruitment issue, and now this. Please stop bringing your RL politics here; if you need therapy for your RL issues, just use this site for escapism like the rest of us do. :cool:

The United Nations,

NOTING that some UN Resolutions limit the ways in which member-nations' governments,and their agencies,are allowed to treat people within their own jurisdictions,

DECLARES that member-nation's governments, and their agencies, are not allowed to move people into non-member nations with the intention that those people would then be treated in any way that would be illegal within the member-nations.

If only more resolutions could be like this. Congratulations St Edmund.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If only more resolutions could be like this. Congratulations St Edmund.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Thank you. :)

Considering the idea of renditions to be illegal is alright with us. We pay criminals to do renditions. If they are caught we send all parties to jail. Otherwise we see no problems with this. Making renditions illegal will not stop them. Because this legislation does not deal with the concept of plausible deniability, i.e. using a criminal or corporate bodies outside of the law to do the renditions it is useless.

Who would even think of using a non-governmental body like that? I'm shocked and appalled that the representative of Commonalitarianism would even suggest such a thing.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Who would even think of using a non-governmental body like that? I'm shocked and appalled that the representative of Commonalitarianism would even suggest such a thing.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Why am I reminded of a certain scene from 'Casablanca'? :p