NationStates Jolt Archive

Extraordinary Rendition
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

The United Nations,

Recognising the obligations incumbent upon member states to refrain from the use of torture,

Affirming the importance of maintaining a strong stance against all applications of torture,

Seeking means to further eliminate the potential for international complicity in acts of torture,

Deeply concerned by the practice of 'extraordinary rendition', whereby persons are rendered to foreign jurisdictions for the express purpose of having torture conducted,

Believing extraordinary rendition to be a subversion of international law and a significant threat to international human rights,

Determined to prevent member states from any form of involvement in this practice,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this Convention, torture as any act of physical or psychological violence perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishent, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;

2. Prohibits member states from any involvement in the rendering of persons to foreign jurisdictions if there is probable cause to believe they would be subject to torture.
Yesterday morning, the Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust were accepted into the United Nations, and it is my pleasure as ambassador-designate to introduce a draft of a proposal we have been working on, and intend to submit on receiving the requisite two endorsements from regional allies. My staff will be discussing the proposal, and are still amenable to suggested changes.

-- Coriolanus Digweed
Ambassador-Designate to the United Nations
Deputy Secretary of State
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

OOC: My thanks to those who have helped with this draft: in particular Ausserland, and also members of the International Democratic Union region and Reclamation forum.

The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda offers its full support to this much needed effort. Further, we are prepared to offer all possible assistance in seeing that this legislation reaches quorum and is voted into effect by the General Assembly.

Well done!

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Extraordinary rendition is a cynical attempt to dodge regulations against torture, and is a shameful stain upon the name of the international community. Altanar will provide all the support it can for this proposal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Extraordinary rendition is a cynical attempt to dodge regulations against torture, and is a shameful stain upon the name of the international community. Altanar will provide all the support it can for this proposal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Soirry, But I just can't see this, Clause 1, defines torture in an acceptible way, clause 2 states that nations cannot send people to foreign soil, for whatever reason, where there are grounds to beleive torture will take place.

Both the Preamble and the action clauses are anti-torture, not pro. As such we will by all means support this proposal

John MacKay, Delegate and Ambassador to the UN.

Soirry, But I just can't see this, Clause 1, defines torture in an acceptible way, clause 2 states that nations cannot send people to foreign soil, for whatever reason, where there are grounds to beleive torture will take place.

Both the Preamble and the action clauses are anti-torture, not pro. As such we will by all means support this proposal

John MacKay, Delegate and Ambassador to the UN.

We agree with you, but we don't see anything in our comments that indicate we are in favor of torture. Our comments were meant to indicate our disapproval of the practice of extraordinary rendition, not disapproval of this proposal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

We agree with you, but we don't see anything in our comments that indicate we are in favor of torture. Our comments were meant to indicate our disapproval of the practice of extraordinary rendition, not disapproval of this proposal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

My apologies then, this proposal would infact ban Extraordinary Rendition where torture is involved.

I will approve this as soon as it is submitted.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

We would vote for this, but we have a problem. Torture is not defined at all, and I could say easily add in a loop hole which makes it so that I can define torture in any way I want.

Ex. A: A military invades my country. They want to take my leader so that they could put him in jail. The leader says "stop!", and shows them a copy of this resolution. He than says that by taking him out of his country and into their country is considered torture and it cannot be done.

Please give a good definition or we WILL vote against this resolution.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

We would vote for this, but we have a problem. Torture is not defined at all, and I could say easily add in a loop hole which makes it so that I can define torture in any way I want.

Ex. A: A military invades my country. They want to take my leader so that they could put him in jail. The leader says "stop!", and shows them a copy of this resolution. He than says that by taking him out of his country and into their country is considered torture and it cannot be done.

Please give a good definition or we WILL vote against this resolution.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

Uhhhh....Dr. Sizofren... Did you happen to check article 1

1. Defines, for the purposes of this Convention, torture as any act of physical or psychological violence perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;


Yeah. Actually reading what you're responding to helps.

Yesterday morning, the Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust were accepted into the United Nations.
Firstly, we would like to extend a warm welcome to the Ambassador-Designate and the Democratic States. On behalf of The Ice Queendom of Ithania we whole-heartedly wish you the best of luck with all your endeavours.

With regard to the resolution; this is an area we have wished to be addressed for a great deal of time but, alas, lacked the necessary talent to write with the zeal and eloquence you and your staff have demonstrated.

Extraordinary rendition is an abhorrent and detestable act which must cease immediately in order to protect the human rights of citizens of member states. We welcome this resolution and assure you that our talents, while still limited, are at your full disposal to ensure a firm stand is taken against this horrid act.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

OOC: I’m terribly sorry to bring this up here because its simply a matter of intrigue and not a recommendation… but what would be the effect of this regarding areas such as Condominia (that's what areas of equally shared soveriegnty are called isn't it?) where sovereignty is shared? It isn’t technically a “foreign jurisdiction” is it? Rather a "shared jurisdiction"?

I’m just confusing myself as to whether or not there could be an arrangement so that non-member state A could exercise their “right” to torture an individual from UN member state B who “happens” to be in the shared territory such as a border zone as part of a “criminal investigation”.

Anyhoo, I think I’ve done enough to sound silly haven’t I? (Point it out at your own peril:p ) So I’ll be silent and not take anymore of your time but thank you for reading this drivel and any reply to such nonsense is very appreciated.

I, Dr. Sizofren apologize for missing that part of the resolution. Sometimes my mind wonders. After closer inspection we can not find a problem with it, and will vote For if it comes to vote, as long as it's alright with the rest of my region.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador (but for how long after that crucial mistake!)

(but for how long after that crucial mistake!)

We'd like to console Dr. Sizofren by informing him that at least if he is removed and punished his homeland won't be able to be render him to a jurisdiction which will use physical or psychological violence "for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession".

Perhaps having that definition pointed out to him will prove quite vital in his "future"?

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Ellelt will abstain on this matter, for the time being. We opposed the first rough draft we saw at an other location. But now I have to throw this issue before the politburo.

The Elleltian position will be recorded once I have authorization to approve or disapprove the measure when it comes to vote on the floor.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I'll just bring up a slight concern with the title. Not that it actually does, but I believe that many nations will assume that a title of "Extraordinary Rendition" means this proposal is actually in favor of such a practice (as we did prior to reading the proposal). Extraordinary Rendition Prohibition, or something shorter to make it fit, would probably be supported more, not to mention be more accurate.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic is in agremeent with the general principles of this proposal, but feels some concern that as currently written it might also prevent the extradition of criminals to jurisdictions whose courts have legitimate claims on them and thus ennable them to escape punishment for their misdeeds.
I suppose a firm guarantee from the nation requesting extradition that it would not use torture in those cases (even if that might be its normal practice otherwise) would be enough to satisfy the requirements of clause #2, but could we also have a clause granting any nations that refuse extradition because of this resolution the right to try the criminals involved themselves even though the actual crimes were committed elsewhere?

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the Un
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic.
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

_________________________________________________________

(OOC: I've been offline for the last couple of days, or would have commented in the IDU forum...)

My government applauds the elegant simplicity of this resolution. We particularly admire Clause 2's phrasing "any involvement in", thus preventing the sort of peripheral involvement that results in a chain of participants so long that some may be able to convince themselves there is no blood on their hands.

... as currently written it might also prevent the extradition of criminals to jurisdictions whose courts have legitimate claims on them and thus enable them to escape punishment for their misdeeds.

Dr Sweynsson, couldn't your question be resolved at a national level? The broad "probable cause" prohibition against surrendering a person to torture might have that effect if torture were not defined; but it is, and very clearly, too.

Thus, it would seem, if a court has a claim on a person that would result in the person being tortured, then the claim is not a legitimate one. A nation would have to show that its claim was legitimate in this sense before another nation could surrender even a self-confessed criminal to them. But this seems to us to be something that nations could resolve between themselves, within the limits this resolution sets.

In general, Ardchoille favours broad-brush UN legislation that allows individual nations to attend to the administrative details of complying with the provisions of a UN ruling.

We recognise that sometimes the only way to avoid wilful misinterpretation is to dot every i and cross every t, but in this case the proposal's ambit is so clearly stated it does not seem necessary.
___________________________________
Dicey Riley, Co-President of Ardchoille

Psychological violence? Excuse me, but what the hell is that? We're defining torture as namecalling or something now? We can't call terrorists "assholes" while questioning them, because it might harms their fragile little psyches? Sorry, but physical torture is one thing. Throwing in some ill-defined -- no, wait -- undefined "psychological violence" kills this proposal for us. Besides, if it's psychological, by definition, it's not violent. Violence requires physical action.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Psychological violence? Excuse me, but what the hell is that? We're defining torture as namecalling or something now? We can't call terrorists "assholes" while questioning them, because it might harms their fragile little psyches? Sorry, but physical torture is one thing. Throwing in some ill-defined -- no, wait -- undefined "psychological violence" kills this proposal for us. Besides, if it's psychological, by definition, it's not violent. Violence requires physical action.

The section in question...psychological violence perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confessionFrom this I guess you could call someone an asshole, as long as it was not for one of these purposes in the section - so doing it for fun is okay :D

Hirota agrees with the good Sheik that this definition is difficult to support.

My government wishes to note that psychological harm, however is just as much (if not more so) an aspect of torture, and that any definition of torture should incorporate recognition of this.

But if one of our interrogators were to shove his face in front of his subject and call him an asshole over and over again, couldn't that be considered to be psychological abuse under this? Who knows really? It doesn't say what it is. And we still question the term "psychological violence" used in the proposal. Again, violence is a physical act. Even such psychological torture methods such as sensory deprivation are not violent. Cripes, if it were, then turning out the lights for your son to go to bed at night could be considered psychological torture under this proposal if you don't provide him with a nightlight.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Heh, I thought I'd look at RL for inspiration.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "

Not a huge improvement.

OOC: One request, I should have made from the start. Please leave RL out of it. Not only is that going to lead to a lot of ugly 'debate', for which read America-bashing and the like, but it's not relevant to this NS proposal. Besides, the system of RL international law on torture and rendition is different from NS's, so it's not usefully comparable in my view.

OOC: No, it's not. Even knocking out the stuff like that which goes on at Gitmo and prisons in Iraq (sorry, but...wah-wah, boohoo), this proposal would nullify normal interrogation methods used by police almost anywhere in the the RL world. This proposal, like the RL UN stuff you quoted, is far too vague.

EDIT: Sorry, QoD, but this is inevitably going to drag in RL stuff. Better to hit it now, before it's submitted.

Wait, so torture is ok as long as it's not done for the purposes of "coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession"? Meaning, we can torture people if they've been sentenced to death, for instance, just because we're sadistic and want to kill them slow and painful like? Or we can send them somewhere else to do the same?

Wait 'til I tell the Doomani! They'll love this!

We support this proposal, it could do with the odd wording changes but shines by comparison with most of the proposals from UNewbies, and is far easier to read than most of the proposals from the real UN. Also, almost no loopholes.

*insert big "APPROVED" stamp here, too lazy to find the picture*

-- A Shadowy Figure Lurking In The Corner Somewhere
Czardaian Ambassador to the United Nations
"Haven't we resigned, already?"

OOC: One request, I should have made from the start. Please leave RL out of it. Not only is that going to lead to a lot of ugly 'debate', for which read America-bashing and the like, but it's not relevant to this NS proposal. Besides, the system of RL international law on torture and rendition is different from NS's, so it's not usefully comparable in my view.1. Nothing wrong with using RL as inspiration.
2. I Don't recall making any comments about how RL nations understand and implement RL legislation. The first person making such a comment is yourself. Most people on here are bright enough not to hijack this and take it into RL debates. We can do that elsewhere.
3. There is no legislation in NS on rendition, so there is nothing to compare with RL at present. Your point is irrelevant.

Now, instead of complaining about people looking at sources, why don't you address the concerns raised by the good sheik and myself. I actually support the concept of the proposal, but have concerns with the implementation you propose.

Now, instead of complaining about people looking at sources, why don't you address the concerns raised by the good sheik and myself. I actually support the concept of the proposal, but have concerns with the implementation you propose.

We must agree with our Hirotan friend. The concept? Sure. It's the definitions -- or, more accurately, lack thereof -- with which we have issues.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

First, I thank all those who have spoken in support of the proposal. Assuming that one or two of the concerns raised have already been resolved, I'll move to discuss these ones:
I'll just bring up a slight concern with the title. Not that it actually does, but I believe that many nations will assume that a title of "Extraordinary Rendition" means this proposal is actually in favor of such a practice (as we did prior to reading the proposal). Extraordinary Rendition Prohibition, or something shorter to make it fit, would probably be supported more, not to mention be more accurate.
With respect, this is ridiculous beyond belief, for three reasons at least:

1. One would have to read absolutely only the title, given the text makes it clear extraordinary rendition is opposed.

2. We couldn't possibly account for the tastes of those who would only give the proposal such a brief assessment. I'm not inclined to subjugate myself to the terminally stupid.

3. This is true of almost anything. Child Labor, Female Genital Mutilation, Oceanic Waste Dumping. Did these have much problem passing?

If the proposal is voted down by hordes of idiots concerned that it supports or legalises extraordinary rendition, feel free to come back and wave an "I told you so" in my face. We'll take our chances.
The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic is in agremeent with the general principles of this proposal, but feels some concern that as currently written it might also prevent the extradition of criminals to jurisdictions whose courts have legitimate claims on them and thus ennable them to escape punishment for their misdeeds.
With respect, I don't understand what you're talking about. First, this deals with torture, not punishment - and punishment is not included as one of the qualifiers following 'for the purposes of'. Second, this cannot deal with punishment, because of the Fair Sentencing Act. The right of nations to punish criminals as they see fit is not something this proposal can override. Third, remember that UN nations are already obliged to refrain from torture: so there is no possible punishment at the end of that extradition process that could be both banned by this and not banned already, no?
Psychological violence? Excuse me, but what the hell is that? We're defining torture as namecalling or something now? We can't call terrorists "assholes" while questioning them, because it might harms their fragile little psyches? Sorry, but physical torture is one thing. Throwing in some ill-defined -- no, wait -- undefined "psychological violence" kills this proposal for us. Besides, if it's psychological, by definition, it's not violent. Violence requires physical action.
I'm glad to see someone is taking issue with the definition, with which I myself am not happy. I hope you'll be able to contribute some useful alternative wordings. But you're contradicting yourself: you say that the inclusion of psychological violence means torture is defined as namecalling, but then you say that psychological violence is undefined. In your haste to get the quick jab in, you've tripped over yourself. Is psychological violence a constricting definition, or is it undefined? Can't be both. And which should it be? Are you honestly arguing you want me to write this proposal to further constrict the options of sovereign nations? If so, I'll be glad to, but I'd got this crazy idea in my head that sometimes it's best to trust in common sense and reasonableness. If not, then how is it being undefined a bad thing at all?

And I don't agree that violence must be physical. It seems to me a word that includes any act of unjust force, no matter through what medium it is perpetrated. But if you'd like to suggest an alternate word that doesn't so offend your sensibilities, I'm sure the definition can be suitably altered.
From this I guess you could call someone an asshole, as long as it was not for one of these purposes in the section - so doing it for fun is okay
This was raised during discussion at the United International Congress. I'm still reluctant to prohibit 'torture for fun', as much because as I see that as falling under intimidation as anything.
Even such psychological torture methods such as sensory deprivation are not violent.

Cripes, if it were, then turning out the lights for your son to go to bed at night could be considered psychological torture under this proposal if you don't provide him with a nightlight.
Flatly untrue. You did read all of the definition, and not simply stop at the point you found it most convenient to?
Defines, for the purposes of this Convention, torture as any act of physical or psychological violence perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;
I don't see any way in which turning off the lights meets any of those conditions.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

OOC: First, I am unutterably confused. I made a post in between my other two that has gone to the moderator queue for approval...yet the other two didn't. Oh well: you may have to wait for that one to come through.

Second, I am even more confused. I made a small OOC comment: there is no way that your characters can reply to that, or to the ensuing OOC responses. You are illustrating my point exactly: let's keep OOC and IC separate.
Sorry, QoD, but this is inevitably going to drag in RL stuff. Better to hit it now, before it's submitted.
No, no it's not. It's better to take that to General. There is no need to discuss real life extraordinary rendition, and I see no reason to do in a thread in which I won't be.
1. Nothing wrong with using RL as inspiration.
Nor is there anything wrong with respecting a thread starter's wishes.
3. There is no legislation in NS on rendition, so there is nothing to compare with RL at present. Your point is irrelevant.
There is at least one piece of legislation: Right to Refuse Extradition. There are at least two on torture. So my point is catastrophically relevant.
Now, instead of complaining about people looking at sources, why don't you address the concerns raised by the good sheik and myself. I actually support the concept of the proposal, but have concerns with the implementation you propose.
Why don't you take your condescending lecturing and shove it. It's my understanding a modicum of thread ownership applies in the UN forum: if I'm suggesting this thread be used for discussion of the proposal, wouldn't it be an idea to use it for that? Or is that one article of forum decorum that doesn't matter?

To be honest, fuck it. Whinge all you want: I was just warning you I'm not going to enter a dialogue about OOC stuff here, so it's going to rather cloud your ability to get any response on points emanating from such observations.

Psychological violence? Excuse me, but what the hell is that? We're defining torture as namecalling or something now? We can't call terrorists "assholes" while questioning them, because it might harms their fragile little psyches? Sorry, but physical torture is one thing. Throwing in some ill-defined -- no, wait -- undefined "psychological violence" kills this proposal for us. Besides, if it's psychological, by definition, it's not violent. Violence requires physical action.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The representative of Cluichstan is wrong. The concept of psychological violence is one that has been widely, perhaps even generally accepted for many years. "Violence" does not necessarily involve "physical action". Perhaps the Sheik should spend some time with a few dictionaries to discover the breadth of the term.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Psychological violence? Excuse me, but what the hell is that? We're defining torture as namecalling or something now? We can't call terrorists "assholes" while questioning them, because it might harms their fragile little psyches?
Calling someone "asshole" while questioning them hardly rises to the level of psychological violence. You're presenting a strawman argument here. Now, playing a recording of the word "asshole" being screamed at full volume for five days to prevent the subject from sleeping would be considered psychological violence, and I think any reasonable person would interpret it as such.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

There is at least one piece of legislation: Right to Refuse Extradition. Extraordinary rendition is not the same as Extradition. I urge you to research this further. Extradition is an open procedure under which a fugitive is lawfully sent to a requesting state where he has committed a serious crime. Extraordinary rendition is a covert operation under which even an innocent person may be forcibly transferred to a state where he has committed no crime. I agree there is an association, but hardly a direct relevance.

Why don't you take your condescending lecturing and shove it. It's my understanding a modicum of thread ownership applies in the UN forum: if I'm suggesting this thread be used for discussion of the proposal, wouldn't it be an idea to use it for that? Or is that one article of forum decorum that doesn't matter?You fail to understand - I've discussed the issue, and then gone about looking for improvements - drawing upon knowledge from sources far more informed about such subjects than you or I - an action intended to improve the process of drafting this proposal. I don't see why talking about torture from RL sources has anything directly to do with the US policy of extraordinary rendition. You brought up US policy - no-one else. Therefore, you have only yourself to blame if someone was to continue the conversation on US policy. I can be held responsible if someone was to continue the conversation on UN policy on torture. Hardly something to feel concerned about!

As for being condescending...I've been called worse. <shrugs>

To be honest, fuck it. Whinge all you want:Not whinging old boy, simply trying to keep focus. You should try and do the same.I was just warning you I'm not going to enter a dialogue about OOC stuff here, so it's going to rather cloud your ability to get any response on points emanating from such observations.So ignore my RL example, it's your proposal, and if you fail to listen and consider all feedback, it's only going to risk undermining the completed text.

I certainly don't need a response from you, it's you who asked for responses from me (and anyone else). It seems insane that someone would claim to be seeking constructive discussion on their proposal, and then go about undermining the whole discussion because they have an ickle tiny grievance with the source.<shrugs>

Now, shall we play nicely? Or are you going to carry on complaining?

OOC:
Extraordinary rendition is not the same as Extradition. I urge you to research this further. Extradition is an open procedure under which a fugitive is lawfully sent to a requesting state where he has committed a serious crime. Extraordinary rendition is a covert operation under which even an innocent person may be forcibly transferred to a state where he has committed no crime. I agree there is an association, but hardly a direct relevance.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Rendition is the transfer of persons or property between jurisdictions. Extradition is one specific type of rendition: the rendition of persons between nation states, on criminal grounds. Therefore, your assertion that there is no NSUN law on rendition is patently false.

OOC:

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Rendition is the transfer of persons or property between jurisdictions. Extradition is one specific type of rendition: the rendition of persons between nation states, on criminal grounds. Therefore, your assertion that there is no NSUN law on rendition is patently false.You fail to read.

Extraordinary rendition. That is what this whole topic is about, isn't it? It's what the proposal is titled. Rendition also means a performance of a dramatic role. It means a lot of things.

Clearly you need to define the act of rendition, or extraordinary rendition, and keep to it. Otherwise, it simply leads to confusion. Stop talking about rendition, when it's actually extraordinary rendition you mean.

So you need a definition of extraordinary rendition, and you need a better definition of torture. I'd like to help, but I fear you've closed your mind to me.

OOC:
You fail to read.
No, I don't:
There is no legislation in NS on rendition
Now, if you'll just amend your earlier statement, we can end this. There is no legislation on extraordinary rendition. There is on another form of rendition.
Stop talking about rendition, when it's actually extraordinary rendition you mean.
My response exactly.
So you need a definition of extraordinary rendition,
I don't see why. When the term is first introduced I explain what it means; and in the second operative clause, I see no problem with the phrasing.
and you need a better definition of torture.
So help provide one.

havvy: once again, don't make IC responses to OOC posts. Doing so is meaningless.

Dr. Sizofren gets up from his seat and makes an announcement:

"Ambassadors of Hirota and QuoD, QUIT ARGUING! You need to take it out back if you want to fight. This is a civil debate, or at least it was until two hours ago. Now, seeing that you are arguing over the make believe land of RL, the difference between IC and OOC, and the difference in definition betwice Extradition and Rendition where the first one isn't even mentioned in the resolution! Now, is there even a real problem with this resolution?"

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador (Who didn't get fired)

tsk, I guess I should have checked I had put "extraordinary" before rendition.

Touché :)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/hug3fw.jpg

"Torture" eh? Lemme get back to you on that.

Could we respectfully ask our honorable colleagues from Hirota and Quintessence of Dust to put aside their obvious personal differences long enough to engage in constructive debate on this proposal?

"Extraordinary rendition" and "extradition" are terms of art which have clear and recognized meanings in the international community. They are two completely different things. The principal difference is that extraordinary rendition is done by the sending nation for its own purposes. Extradition is done at the behest of the receiving nation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Dr. Sizofren gets up from his seat and makes an announcement:

"Ambassadors of Hirota and QuoD, QUIT ARGUING! You need to take it out back if you want to fight. This is a civil debate, or at least it was until two hours ago. Now, seeing that you are arguing over the make believe land of RL, the difference between IC and OOC, and the difference in definition betwice Extradition and Rendition where the first one isn't even mentioned in the resolution! Now, is there even a real problem with this resolution?"

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador (Who didn't get fired)

Hollering at them to stop is not going to help. All it does is increase the volume.

You're continuing to respond to OOC posts from an IC view. It's silly. Very silly. Please do stop.

I'm glad to see someone is taking issue with the definition, with which I myself am not happy.

Good, at least you realise that much.

I hope you'll be able to contribute some useful alternative wordings.

Sure, I'd be more than happy to do so. Let me ponder it for a bit.

(OOC: As you know, my friend, I've got a lot of other stuff on my mind. Forgive me if I don't get back to you promptly with anything.)

But you're contradicting yourself: you say that the inclusion of psychological violence means torture is defined as namecalling, but then you say that psychological violence is undefined. In your haste to get the quick jab in, you've tripped over yourself. Is psychological violence a constricting definition, or is it undefined? Can't be both. And which should it be? Are you honestly arguing you want me to write this proposal to further constrict the options of sovereign nations? If so, I'll be glad to, but I'd got this crazy idea in my head that sometimes it's best to trust in common sense and reasonableness. If not, then how is it being undefined a bad thing at all?

My point was that leaving it open to interpretation, in this case, may not be wise. I'm not asking for a constricting definition, but rather a cut-off point so to speak. As someone has already pointed out regarding my namecalling question, sure, calling someone an asshole may not be psychological torture, whereas doing so over and over again via loudspeaker to keep the subject awake probably should be considered such. However, there are those who do believe that simply calling someone a fucktard constitutes abuse.

And I don't agree that violence must be physical. It seems to me a word that includes any act of unjust force, no matter through what medium it is perpetrated.

How can a word include an act of unjust force? It's just a word.

But if you'd like to suggest an alternate word that doesn't so offend your sensibilities, I'm sure the definition can be suitably altered.

As I said, I like the idea here, but I just think the wording's off. Give me some time, and I'm sure I can come up with something helpful.

Flatly untrue. You did read all of the definition, and not simply stop at the point you found it most convenient to?

Or maybe I won't bother, considering you appear to have taken the "agree with me now or sod off" route. Good luck with that.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We agree there needs to be a better definition of "psychological violence." Does it apply to wrapping someone in a sheet very tightly putting a hood over their head, then putting them in a coffin for three days without break, then questioning them. This can be somewhat effective, it does not involve physical violence. Isolation techniques can be quite effective. You might want to replace "psychological violence with psychological torture". Pyschological torture does not have to use physical means to break a person. It can use morality or religion to break a person.

We agree there needs to be a better definition of "psychological violence." Does it apply to wrapping someone in a sheet very tightly putting a hood over their head, then putting them in a coffin for three days without break, then questioning them. This can be somewhat effective, it does not involve physical violence.

Um...that's pretty physical...

How can a word include an act of unjust force? It's just a word.
Uh, what? When you sneer 'a word', what are you referring to? I was using it to mean 'violence' i.e. violence is a word whose definition could include psychological acts.
Or maybe I won't bother, considering you appear to have taken the "agree with me now or sod off" route. Good luck with that.
Any common sense reading of the definition makes it brain-drillingly obvious that such a ludicrous scenario doesn't qualify as torture, given it's not conducted for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession. I fail to see what's so disagreeable about asking people to read a proposal in its entirety before leaping to conclusions about its meaning.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Uh, what? When you sneer 'a word', what are you referring to? I was using it to mean 'violence' i.e. violence is a word whose definition could include psychological acts.

But where is the line drawn, eh? Is it drawn at the example mentioned before, with the loudspeaker blaring, or does it include calling someone an asshole or some racist slur?

Any common sense reading of the definition makes it brain-drillingly obvious that such a ludicrous scenario doesn't qualify as torture, given it's not conducted for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession.

But if it is? I fail to see how any common-sense reading could miss the problems here with the definition. The definition is faulty. You've admitted yourself that you don't like it. You can call off the attack dogs now.

I fail to see what's so disagreeable about asking people to read a proposal in its entirety before leaping to conclusions about its meaning.


Again, I fail to see what's so disagreeable about asking the author of a proposal to defend what he's drafted with actual arguments without having to resort to "you obviously can't read" attacks. The draft has definition problems -- problems that you yourself have conceded. There's no sense attacking me. You wrote it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There is another problem with "extraordinary rendition." If I take my prisoner to "international waters" on a submarine or hand them over to a foreign power on an aircraft carrier or navy boat in "international waters" and then torture them, I don't think this would fall under "extraordinary rendition." The same would apply if I took them into deep space, then did the same thing in a neutral zone or unclaimed space. There are simple ways around this.

There is another problem with "extraordinary rendition." If I take my prisoner to "international waters" on a submarine or hand them over to a foreign power on an aircraft carrier or navy boat and then torture them, I don't think this would fall under "extraordinary rendition." The same would apply if I took them into deep space, then did the same thing. There are simple ways around this.
A handover of an individual to a vessel under the flag of a foreign power would qualify as a transfer to a foreign jurisdiction, would it not? If not, then this can be easily remedied, I believe.

Benedictions,

But where is the line drawn, eh? Is it drawn at the example mentioned before, with the loudspeaker blaring, or does it include calling someone an asshole or some racist slur?
No, there's been some crossed wires or something. You're misunderstanding the word...'word'.

I said: 'And I don't agree that violence must be physical. It seems to me a word that includes any act of unjust force, no matter through what medium it is perpetrated.' What I meant by this was 'violence can include non-physical acts'.

You responded: 'How can a word include an act of unjust force? It's just a word.' By which I assume you meant: 'saying a bad thing to someone isn't torture, because it's not violence'. Fine, and maybe it's a fair point, but it's not a response to my statement.

Eesh, this is confusing, and I'm not sure I can clearly explain what the misunderstanding is. Nevermind. I'll move on, and back:

On what grounds do you assert that violence must be solely physical, or that there is no such concept as psychological violence? And do you have an alternate wording that would obfuscate the disagreement.
But if it is?
You're saying if turning off your son's lights at night is conducted for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession? I thought it would be because you wanted him to get to sleep...

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

You're saying if turning off your son's lights at night is conducted for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession? I thought it would be because you wanted him to get to sleep...


And that wouldn't be coercion?

And that wouldn't be coercion?
No, of course not.

No, of course not.

Wow...doing something to get one to bow to your will isn't coercion? Interesting...

Well, at least the arguing moved on into the proposal and not OOC debates. Ahem. Anyways. I hope this debate is IC now.

Dr. Sizofren decides that he should look up those words that people seem to by spitting out of there mouths rapidly debating their meaning like Coercion.

"Yes, okay. Well, your will is to have the child sleep, as to help himself. Maybe we can try to make it so that there is a clause for letting the pass happen as long as it benefits the person being passed so there won't be torture.

So, anyways, anybody have a better solution?"

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

In a telegram I received this afternoon from the Politburo of the United Socialist States of Ellelt. I must oppose this measure as it is currently written. Further the Politburo has expressed its support of the ideals espoused by the author but requests that definitions be more concrete in nature.

We would like to thank our Cluichstani Comrades, for bringing the matter of the flawed definitions to the author.

Further I would like to note that Ambassador Khernynko has been called back to New Stalingrad to take care of national matter, so I will be representing Elleltian interests for the time being.

Demitri Petrolovich
Secretary to the Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

With respect, I don't understand what you're talking about. First, this deals with torture, not punishment - and punishment is not included as one of the qualifiers following 'for the purposes of'. Second, this cannot deal with punishment, because of the Fair Sentencing Act. The right of nations to punish criminals as they see fit is not something this proposal can override. Third, remember that UN nations are already obliged to refrain from torture: so there is no possible punishment at the end of that extradition process that could be both banned by this and not banned already, no?

Somebody commits a dreadful crime, or whole series of dreadful crimes, in another nation that's currently outside of the UN and whose legal system routinely uses torture to extract confessions. That person then manages to escape into our territory, either legally or illegally, before they can be caught. The government of that other nation requests their extradition, providing enough evidence (collected by acceptable means) of their crimes to convince us that there's a genuine case to answer and that we don't want to keep that person in our own country for any longer than is absolutely necessary. Wouldn't the fact that they'd be liable to be tortured there before sentencing mean that we couldn't send them back there (not even if we considered their crimes to be worse offences than that torture)? If that's so then we'd at least like the right to try & punish them ourselves, assuming that the government of the other nation involved agrees to this, and as some elements within both the UN and our own legislature have previously shown hostility to the idea of nations exercising jurisdiction over any cases that occur outside of their own territories we would like our right to do so in cases like this enshrined in international law. Clear enough?

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

Somebody commits a dreadful crime, or whole series of dreadful crimes, in another nation that's currently outside of the UN and whose legal system routinely uses torture to extract confessions. That person then manages to escape into our territory, either legally or illegally, before they can be caught. The government of that other nation requests their extradition, providing enough evidence (collected by acceptable means) of their crimes to convince us that there's a genuine case to answer and that we don't want to keep that person in our own country for any longer than is absolutely necessary. Wouldn't the fact that they'd be liable to be tortured there before sentencing mean that we couldn't send them back there (not even if we considered their crimes to be worse offences than that torture)? If that's so then we'd at least like the right to try & punish them ourselves, assuming that the government of the other nation involved agrees to this, and as some elements within both the UN and our own legislature have previously shown hostility to the idea of nations exercising jurisdiction over any cases that occur outside of their own territories we would like our right to do so in cases like this enshrined in international law. Clear enough?

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

We can only say once again that extradition and extraordinary rendition are two completely different terms with completely different meanings in international law. We can't understand why the representative of St Edmundan Antarctic insists on muddying this debate by confusing the two. In the example cited, it is clearly not a case of extraordinary rendition; it is extradition. Perhaps some research into the meaning of those terms would serve him well.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This excellent proposal has now been submitted. We would respectfully but strongly urge our colleagues who are delegates to add their approvals. The link to it is:

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=rendition

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs