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, punishment, 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.
This has reached quorum and will be voted on by the General Assembly after it concludes considering the Sexual Privacy Act.

Congratulations on reaching quorum and I think it goes without saying that I’ll be supporting this doesn’t it? It’s a much needed, powerful, concise resolution with a perfectly balanced definition of torture. It's a true testament to your wonderful talents.

I’m just sorry that thus far I’ve not been able to offer coherent advice or coherent compliments.

I know this will sail through with a large margin *touches wood* but I still give you my good luck wishes. :)

Well, I wouldn't want to 'jinx' this proposal, nor to get too smug too early (smugness needs maturing, like a Yeldan Fine Cheese). Nonetheless, thank you for your kind words. I look forward to an interesting debate, hopefully.

We still don't like the definitions, nor are we pleased with the author's opening of a new debate to effectively brush our already stated objections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512918&highlight=rendition) under the rug.

We will be voting against this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm going to abstain, partially for the same reasons Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich outlined.

I'd have voted for - if the author had submitted a draft before submitting as a proposal. I know it's been in a drafting stage for sometime, but it could have had improvements.

To be honest, I'm going to take my chances on a massive protest of aggrieved parents that can't turn their children's lights off. That line of argument is positively Ceoranan in its absurdity. Come up with a sensible way by which the definitions are constricting or omitting, and I'll try to provide a sensible response; purposefully seeking out silly interpretations only to bicker is utterly pointless, given the burden of implementation lies with member nations.

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

Mr. Madison, it figures that you would take the most extreme example I cited and post it here. Most disingenuous of you really. Your smug dismissal of my arguments, as well as those made by my fine Hirotan friend, does this body no good. As I stated in the previous debate -- which, it seems, you tried to bury -- your definitions are too far-reaching and prevent the use of standard interrogation procedures employed by even the most sane and even, dare I say, the most fluffy of nations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

which, it seems you tried to bury
Flatly untrue. If that were the case, I'd have asked for the bump post to be deleted. I simply had no further use for the thread, having submitted the proposal. I wanted to add a poll for the debate, and I wanted the thread fresh of some of the guff clogging it up in the middle (that doesn't include your comments, I hasten to add).
your definitions are too far-reaching and prevent the use of standard interrogation procedures
This is the 'asshole' thing. The way I see it, calling someone an asshole doesn't amount to violence: I'm sure they'll have heard worse, and it's not that intimidating a word now, is it?

Your argument comes across as self-defeating. You're arguing mild techniques should be permitted: of course. If they are so mild, then they can't reasonably be said to amount to 'violence'; if they are, then however standard they may be, they should be prohibited.

Also bear in mind: you're going to send someone to another country, just so you can call them a naughty word? Isn't that the sort of thing that doesn't really require outsourcing? The only benefit to rendering someone abroad would be if the recipient nation had laxer laws on interrogation: yet given Cluichstan clearly doesn't consider such methods to be torture, then you'd have absolutely zero need to resort to extraordinary rendition anyway.

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

Flatly untrue. If that were the case, I'd have asked for the bump post to be deleted. I simply had no further use for the thread, having submitted the proposal. I wanted to add a poll for the debate, and I wanted the thread fresh of some of the guff clogging it up in the middle (that doesn't include your comments, I hasten to add).

Riiiight...

Anyway...

This is the 'asshole' thing. The way I see it, calling someone an asshole doesn't amount to violence: I'm sure they'll have heard worse, and it's not that intimidating a word now, is it?

Your argument comes across as self-defeating. You're arguing mild techniques should be permitted: of course. If they are so mild, then they can't reasonably be said to amount to 'violence'; if they are, then however standard they may be, they should be prohibited.


The fact that you included "psychological violence" without defining it leaves it open to spurious interpretation. There are numerous ways of defining it, but this proposal fails to do so, even as is common practice in this body, "for the purposes of this resolution."

It would be nice if you'd just accept and admit this oversight and withdraw the proposal until such time as this issue with the text is addressed. Of course, given the attitude you've displayed towards those critical of this proposal thus far, that's most likely just a pipe dream on my part.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Riiiight
I'm increasingly amused by this. You actually thought your arguments were that crushingly unanswerable I felt the need to deny their existence? Dear god in heaven how did that head of yours fit through the door on the way in? I'm looking forward to some debate on this issue, and if I didn't want that, I'd hardly have put a proposal before 27,000 UN members. If anything, it's that your arguments were becoming increasingly so inane as to be beneath bothering with: but I can't honestly say that's why I abandoned the thread, satisfying as it might be to think of it that way in retrospect. I just abandoned it because I was done with it: I wanted a clean one for the vote debate.

Anyway, the matter is closed.
The fact that you included "psychological violence" without defining it leaves it open to spurious interpretation.
But why would you choose to adopt such a spurious interpretation? That's what I don't understand. You evidently think it silly to interpret 'psychological violence' to include calling the suspect a dickhead. Fine. So why then interpret it to mean just that? (And again, why would you render someone abroad to do such a thing?)

Further, your position comes off as a little inconsistent. You've advocated national rights in the past, and favoured legislation that gave nations reasonable leeway in interpreting it. That's a perfectly sensible approach. Why is thrown out of the window now? 'violence' doesn't need definition: it's a word that has an accepted commonality of meaning - the infliction of some form of injury, physical or psychological. Doubtless there'll be a few people on either extreme claiming it means sausages, but you can't possibly expect me to write to such extremes. We assume a reasonable nation, and anything else is by definition beyond us. No reasonable nation could interpret 'psychological violence' to include calling a suspect a moderately rude name.

I restate: I'm perfectly willing to hear criticisms of the definition. But until a specific abuse, either way, is made clear, there's no better alternative been offered. So I ask again: show me a sensible means by which this definition is damaging, and I'll try to come up with a sensible response, or reconsider this legislation. You haven't done that yet.
Of course, given the attitude you've displayed towards those critical of this proposal thus far, that's most likely just a pipe dream on my part.
I've dropped two - so that would be 50% - of the original operative clauses, changed the definition more than once, and made several other smaller changes to the text. I've listened, and responded, plenty to those suggesting changes. If you're drawing blanks, I wouldn't be so quick to blame it on me.

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

To the esteemed Director Madison, I pose this question:

What effect, if any, does this resolution have on independently brokered extradition treaties between member nations? Does it render them null and void if one of the nations uses, say, waterboarding as an information-gathering technique?

As for the question of psychological torture, both the Sheik and the Director have valid points. For example, I'm not a Jew, so the psychological strain of being placed in a grave, being told it's mine by the surrounding group of conspicuously armed agents, being forced to then share it with a group of pigs, shellfish and a ham and swiss on white bread with mayonnaise, and then being told that I'll be killed in this state of impurity and therefore not enter heaven -- well, that wouldn't really be psychological torture to me, beyond the threat of imminent death. To a Jew or a Muslim, that's pretty severe.

But is it violent?

I approved this proposal, but am so far in the ABSTAIN column until my question about extradition is answered and the psychological component is resolved.

Benjamin Royce
Intangible Minister UN

If the country to which the individual would be rendered is likely to use any form of torture that would meet the definitions of this proposal, then yes, those treaties would be rendered null and void. One might ask, however, why it is that these nations feel the need to send their prisoners to another country for punishment or whatever? Are they incapable of doing it themselves for some reason, or are they simply looking to circumvent international law?

I'm increasingly amused by this.

Gald I can entertain you.

You actually thought your arguments were that crushingly unanswerable I felt the need to deny their existence? Dear god in heaven how did that head of yours fit through the door on the way in? [/quote]

Ah, a personal attack. I suppose I shouldn't expect any more from you. :rolleyes:

I'm looking forward to some debate on this issue, and if I didn't want that, I'd hardly have put a proposal before 27,000 UN members.

Yes, a debate that I'm sure you'll simply ignore again.

If anything, it's that your arguments were becoming increasingly so inane as to be beneath bothering with: but I can't honestly say that's why I abandoned the thread, satisfying as it might be to think of it that way in retrospect.

Yes, more personal attacks. No surprise there.

I just abandoned it because I was done with it: I wanted a clean one for the vote debate.

Again, riiiight...

Anyway, the matter is closed.

Because you say it is? I think not.

But why would you choose to adopt such a spurious interpretation? That's what I don't understand. You evidently think it silly to interpret 'psychological violence' to include calling the suspect a dickhead. Fine. So why then interpret it to mean just that? (And again, why would you render someone abroad to do such a thing?) Further, your position comes off as a little inconsistent. You've advocated national rights in the past, and favoured legislation that gave nations reasonable leeway in interpreting it. That's a perfectly sensible approach. Why is thrown out of the window now? 'violence' doesn't need definition: it's a word that has an accepted commonality of meaning - the infliction of some form of injury, physical or psychological.

I'm not throwing anything out the window. It is a silly interpretation, and that's why Cluichstan is not about to leave it up to the UN to interpret it. Many will actually consider namecalling a form of psychological violence (OOC: consider the current hooplah over "bullying"). [/quote]

Doubtless there'll be a few people on either extreme claiming it means sausages, but you can't possibly expect me to write to such extremes. We assume a reasonable nation, and anything else is by definition beyond us. No reasonable nation could interpret 'psychological violence' to include calling a suspect a moderately rude name.

Yes, sausages. Let's take this debate into the absurd. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of nations that would view namecalling as "psychological violence." We don't want to be subjected to their definitions. And we certainly wouldn't want to violate UN law...

I restate: I'm perfectly willing to hear criticisms of the definition.

Hear them, sure. Actually listen to them, though? Your attitude clearly says not.

But until a specific abuse, either way, is made clear, there's no better alternative been offered. So I ask again: show me a sensible means by which this definition is damaging, and I'll try to come up with a sensible response, or reconsider this legislation. You haven't done that yet.

Been there. Done that. You've refused to listen.

I've dropped two - so that would be 50% - of the original operative clauses, changed the definition more than once, and made several other smaller changes to the text. I've listened, and responded, plenty to those suggesting changes.

Where? I've followed the drafting of this proposal from the start in this austere body. Since you first unveiled your proposal here, Mr. Madison, you've accepted no criticism whatsoever. You may have "listened and responded," but only with snide and smug derision.

And I shudder to think, given the current text, what those two clauses might've been.

If you're drawing blanks, I wouldn't be so quick to blame it on me.

Yes, must be my fault. Please, give it a rest.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm going to abstain, partially for the same reasons Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich outlined.

I'd have voted for - if the author had submitted a draft before submitting as a proposal. I know it's been in a drafting stage for sometime, but it could have had improvements.

A draft of this proposal was placed on this forum for comment on 31 December 2006; there were 53 comments. A draft was made available on Reclamation on 9 December; there were 59 comments. For the representative of Hirota to now claim that he's abstaining because the proposal was submitted without a draft being made available is disingenuous at best. He's abstaining in a huff because the author chose not to revise the proposal to suit him. He should be honest enough to admit that rather than hiding behind a spurious complaint.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We still don't like the definitions, nor are we pleased with the author's opening of a new debate to effectively brush our already stated objections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512918&highlight=rendition) under the rug.

We will be voting against this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The representative of Cluichstan is very well aware that it's long been a common practice to open a new thread when a resolution reaches queue. To suggest that it was done to brush his objections under the rug is absurd.

His objections were considered by the author and by others participating in the discussion of the draft proposal. The representative started off with the absurd statement that there is no such thing as psychological violence. Then he posited an equally absurd example of coercion. He complained and complained about the definition, but made no effort at all to provide any positive suggestions for improvement. If his objections are indeed "under the rug", perhaps that's because it's where they belong.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

He complained and complained about the definition, but made no effort at all to provide any positive suggestions for improvement.

I'm not the bloody author. It's not my job to rewrite the proposal.

And point of fact, I offered a couple of examples of coercion, both of which fall under the definition of "psychological violence" per the text of this proposal. You can dismiss them all you like, Mr. Olembe, but they fit under the text as it currently stands.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

First, extradition. There is a blanket concept of 'rendition': basically, transferring someone (or something, but in this context it's not applicable) from one jurisdiction to another. Extradition is one specific type of rendition: broadly, someone is taken from one country, by way of diplomatic and legal channels, to stand trial for a crime committed in the country they're rendered to. Extraordinary rendition is also a type of rendition, but it is entirely separate from extradition. The whole purpose of extradition is operation within international law; the whole purpose of extraordinary rendition is operation outside international law.

Member nations are already prohibited from using torture. Therefore, there can exist no such treaties as mentioned by the representative of Intangelon. What could exist is agreements between members and non-members to have people tortured, but that wouldn't really be extradition anyway.

As to the question of the rather bizarre grave scenario: yes, I think it is violent. If it is going to cause severe distress about the possibility of eternal damnation - not being Jewish myself, I can't say if that would be the general reaction - then it's clearly inflicting serious psychological harm. That seems to fit with a reasonable understanding of 'violence'. The reason I included psychological violence was in fact to account for such manipulation, which clearly inflicts little physical but a great deal of mental anguish. So more generally, that kind of treatment - 'Room 101 shit', as one of my staffers dubbed it - is what I would consider to qualify as psychological violence, yes.

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

I'm not throwing anything out the window. It is a silly interpretation, and that's why Cluichstan is not about to leave it up to the UN to interpret it.
Bingo. The UN doesn't interpret resolutions: you do. The UN provides the text, but nations oversee implementation. This is how, for example, the Federal Republic's Creative Solutions Agency managed to arrive at somewhat different conclusions regarding legislation's requirements than some other nations' governments did.

So you're in the clear. (Though I still find it strange that you'd need to render someone abroad, just to call them a name. That's a pretty expensive asshole.)

Yes, sausages. Let's take this debate into the absurd.
Calm down; it was just a turn of phrase. Nonetheless, I fully agree: there's no point discussing the absurd. Which was, uh, exactly what I was saying...

The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of nations that would view namecalling as "psychological violence." We don't want to be subjected to their definitions. And we certainly wouldn't want to violate UN law...
See above. Beyond that, you would only be subjected to their definitions inasmuch as they would probably disallow your rendering persons to them. Seriously, is a nation that views namecalling as a form of violence going to be your first choice of interrogation site? I would really, really doubt that. Extraordinary rendition only makes sense when rendering to nations with less restrictive laws: doing so to ones with more restrictive ones would be pointless, so isn't of any real concern.

Hear them, sure. Actually listen to them, though? Your attitude clearly says not.
Well, let's see:
- here, we accepted the need for a definition of torture (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1030&view=findpost&p=1699102)
- here, we changed to the use of 'person' (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1030&view=findpost&p=1713653)
- minor format suggestion adopted (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3216571)
- more formatting (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3220257)
- here we actively sought out answers to potential problems (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3243519)
- entire clause struck (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3254634)
- these changes were adopted (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3316611)
- once again questioned to make sure definition was ok (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3341805)
- small addition (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3345836)

I make that 9. No, the drafting of this proposal wasn't perfect. But where helpful comments were offered, I did my best to incorporate them. Annoyingly, I've edited the first posts of the two original threads; the proposal now is quite different from that first draft. So once again: that others offered meaningful criticism and you petulent brattishness is nothing against me.

Been there. Done that. You've refused to listen.
I've listened. And your two specific abuses have been that you might not be able to fly someone to another country just to have them called a name, and that parents might not be able to turn their children's lights off. When I said 'point out a serious abuse and I'll respond', I really did mean it; conjuring up banal trivialities doesn't come close.

Where? I've followed the drafting of this proposal from the start in this austere body. Since you first unveiled your proposal here, Mr. Madison, you've accepted no criticism whatsoever. You may have "listened and responded," but only with snide and smug derision.
See above. I counted nine criticisms taken on board.

And I shudder to think, given the current text, what those two clauses might've been.
One condemned torture; one reminded all states that they were prohibited from using torture.

Yes, must be my fault. Please, give it a rest.
Well, put it this way. You've accused me of not listening. Yet I have provided links of me...listening. So, yeah, it pretty much must be the nature of the comments. Maybe if you for five minutes put aside your obsessive need to get the last word on everything and avail yourself of every opportunity for the snide jab instead of the constructive comment, you'd find a greater audience.

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

I'm not the bloody author. It's not my job to rewrite the proposal.

And point of fact, I offered a couple of examples of coercion, both of which fall under the definition of "psychological violence" per the text of this proposal. You can dismiss them all you like, Mr. Olembe, but they fit under the text as it currently stands.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You're quite right. It's not your job to rewrite the proposal. And you obviously see no reason to provide suggestions on how it might accommodate your complaints. If your complaints were motivated by a genuine concern for the quality of the proposal, it seems that you'd at least try to offer something constructive. Of course, it's much easier to rant and sneer and then whine petulantly when people dismiss your arguments.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I agree that the definitions are useless here. Psychological violence is a ridiculous statement. Causing psychological damage, or permanent mental trauma makes more sense. Psychological violence really does need to be defined. Here are some real examples you might be talking about. A general blanket statement is useless.

Isolation of victim

Induced debility-producing exhaustion

Monopolization of perceptions, including obsessiveness and possessiveness

Threats, such as death to self, victim, family or friends, or sham executions

Degradation, including humiliation, denial of victim's power, and verbal name-calling

Drug or alcohol administration

Altered states of consciousness produced by a hypnotic state

Occasional indulgences that keep hope alive that the abuse will cease

Further, I think it is too easy to counter this legislation. For example I could just dump my prisoner on a corporate ship on international waters which flew under a variety of flags. There are ways to avoid being caught in this legislation.

For example I could just dump my prisoner on a corporate ship on international waters which flew under a variety of flags. There are ways to avoid being caught in this legislation.
If it flies under a variety of flags, it's under foreign jurisdiction. That would be a rendition: if torture is involved, it would be an illegal one.

I agree that the definitions are useless here. Psychological violence is a ridiculous statement. Causing psychological damage, or permanent mental trauma makes more sense. Psychological violence really does need to be defined. Here are some real examples you might be talking about. A general blanket statement is useless.

Isolation of victim

Induced debility-producing exhaustion

Monopolization of perceptions, including obsessiveness and possessiveness

Threats, such as death to self, victim, family or friends, or sham executions

Degradation, including humiliation, denial of victim's power, and verbal name-calling

Drug or alcohol administration

Altered states of consciousness produced by a hypnotic state

Occasional indulgences that keep hope alive that the abuse will cease

Any of these potential scenarios will have some nations agreeing that they constitute torture, and others disagreeing completely. The final decision would be left to individual nations to determine for themselves.

Further, I think it is too easy to counter this legislation. For example I could just dump my prisoner on a corporate ship on international waters which flew under a variety of flags. There are ways to avoid being caught in this legislation.

If any of those flags were one of your own or any other UN nation, then it would still be prohibitted from utilizing torture as previously banned by the UN. If it was under no UN flags, then you would be dropping this person onto the property(territory) of another country. If there was any reason to suspect that torture, as defined by this resolution, would be used against them, then you would be in breach of UN law through this proposal. So, no. That scenario would not dodge this bill at all.

If the country to which the individual would be rendered is likely to use any form of torture that would meet the definitions of this proposal, then yes, those treaties would be rendered null and void. One might ask, however, why it is that these nations feel the need to send their prisoners to another country for punishment or whatever? Are they incapable of doing it themselves for some reason, or are they simply looking to circumvent international law?

There is a difference between extradition and "sending prisoners elsewhere to be tortured". The former, I've heard of and is a staple of international law. The latter is either new or rare, for I have never heard of it. Trust me, if we WANT someone tortured in Intangelon, they'll be tortured in Intangelon. If we haven't the fortitude to do something, we're sure as Gehenna not going to coward our way into getting another nation to do it for us, and we'd look with disdain on those nations who'd export torture OR volunteer to torture anyone's citizens but their own (not captured in espionage or war).

Extradition does not mean sending someone to be tortured, per se. It means agreeing by treaty to send criminals from another nation who have fled to yours BACK to the nation from which they fled. Now, torture can certainly play a role into such treaties, but I've never heard of any agreements, above or below board, to send prisoners out to another country just to avoid torturing them on their own soil. Seems like a cowardly thing to do, to me.

Extradition is necessary; torture is debatable.

First, extradition. There is a blanket concept of 'rendition': basically, transferring someone (or something, but in this context it's not applicable) from one jurisdiction to another. Extradition is one specific type of rendition: broadly, someone is taken from one country, by way of diplomatic and legal channels, to stand trial for a crime committed in the country they're rendered to. Extraordinary rendition is also a type of rendition, but it is entirely separate from extradition. The whole purpose of extradition is operation within international law; the whole purpose of extraordinary rendition is operation outside international law.

Spot on.

Member nations are already prohibited from using torture. Therefore, there can exist no such treaties as mentioned by the representative of Intangelon. What could exist is agreements between members and non-members to have people tortured, but that wouldn't really be extradition anyway.

While I appreciate your response, I find it disquieting that you've ascribed the bolded action to me. I have mentioned no treaties for Extraordinary Rendition. My question was about what effect this resolution would have on already-negotiated EXTRADITION treaties. Please cite me correctly or cease citing me at all, sir.

I asked the question about extradition treaties because I feel that this law might be used to nullify them IF one of any signitory nations feels that any criminal on their shores, given due process, MIGHT suffer torture at the hands of the prosecuting nation. Example: A citizen of A commits a crime in country B and then flees back to A, evading B's authorities. Upon the criminal's arrest in A, B demands the criminal's extradition to B to stand trial for his crime according to the provisions of the "A-B Extradition Treaty" signed at some prior time.

QUESTION: Under this resolution, could A refuse to extradite the criminal if A believes that B uses torture as part of its criminal punishment regimen, and such matters were not addressed in the original "A-B Extradition Treaty"? In short, could this law be used to nullify existing legal extradition treaties based on the perception (let alone provenance -- remember the numerous Departments of Creative Solutions in some nations before you mention the legality of torture in the laws of NSUN) of torture being used in any signatory nation?

As to the question of the rather bizarre grave scenario: yes, I think it is violent. If it is going to cause severe distress about the possibility of eternal damnation - not being Jewish myself, I can't say if that would be the general reaction - then it's clearly inflicting serious psychological harm. That seems to fit with a reasonable understanding of 'violence'. The reason I included psychological violence was in fact to account for such manipulation, which clearly inflicts little physical but a great deal of mental anguish. So more generally, that kind of treatment - 'Room 101 shit', as one of my staffers dubbed it - is what I would consider to qualify as psychological violence, yes.

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

Very well, we have your stance on psychological violence.

But your smug dismissal as "bizarre" of my grave "scenario" is again disquieting -- the very "scenario" I described has been used against Muslim prisoners in the RL "War on Terror" in places the RL "CIA" wishes people didn't know about. Look it up.

*snip*
Degradation, including humiliation, denial of victim's power, and verbal name-calling
*snip*


Forgive the impertinence, but is there a way to call someone a name that is nonverbal?

I mean, I suppose I could make the prisoner wear a shirt that reads "asshole", and has an arrow pointing to the neck opening, but that's really more labeling than calling, isn't it?

While I appreciate your response, I find it disquieting that you've ascribed the bolded action to me. I have mentioned no treaties for Extraordinary Rendition. My question was about what effect this resolution would have on already-negotiated EXTRADITION treaties. Please cite me correctly or cease citing me at all, sir.
No, what you said was:
What effect, if any, does this resolution have on independently brokered extradition treaties between member nations? Does it render them null and void if one of the nations uses, say, waterboarding as an information-gathering technique?
Yes, you were talking about extradition treaties. But implicit in your second sentence was that one nation - with or without the knowledge or complicity of the other - would be employing torture. I was simply pointing out that because UN nations are already prohibited from using torture, that situation couldn't occur.

So my answer would still be no. Extradiction involves rendering someone for the purpose of having them stand trial; extraordinary rendition involves rendering someone for the purpose of having them tortured.
I asked the question about extradition treaties because I feel that this law might be used to nullify them IF one of any signitory nations feels that any criminal on their shores, given due process, MIGHT suffer torture at the hands of the prosecuting nation. Example: A citizen of A commits a crime in country B and then flees back to A, evading B's authorities. Upon the criminal's arrest in A, B demands the criminal's extradition to B to stand trial for his crime according to the provisions of the "A-B Extradition Treaty" signed at some prior time.

QUESTION: Under this resolution, could A refuse to extradite the criminal if A believes that B uses torture as part of its criminal punishment regimen, and such matters were not addressed in the original "A-B Extradition Treaty"? In short, could this law be used to nullify existing legal extradition treaties based on the perception (let alone provenance -- remember the numerous Departments of Creative Solutions in some nations before you mention the legality of torture in the laws of NSUN) of torture being used in any signatory nation?
Well, for a start, there is only one, very narrow, article of UN law on extradition. A could already refuse to extradite the criminal, regardless of this proposal. They already have the right to void the treaty, to say no, or whatever. So it's your use of the word 'used' that I'm uneasy about. Certainly, nothing in this proposal gives nations any justification for not fulfilling their treaty obligations. True, it would prohibit the rendition in the case you mentioned; but A would not really be 'using' the proposal. They wouldn't need to. They have a legal obligation not to perform the action: that's it.

I wouldn't anticipate vast networks of extradition treaties collapsing as a result of this, if that's your concern. I'm unconvinced the signing of unconditional extradition treaties between non-torturing nations and torturing ones is pandemic, for a start.
But your smug dismissal as "bizarre" of my grave "scenario" is again disquieting
No smugness intended, though I mixed up my words a little. The bizarre scenario was the idea of using those methods on you, a non-Jew: that's the situation you originally invoked. It would be bizarre to attack someone with mayonnaise if they had no particular ritual objection to it, that's all I meant. The idea of such an assault on someone who would find it, as I've said, violent, is obviously abhorrent: hence our writing this proposal.

Nonetheless, I apologise for any accidental offence caused.

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

Forgive the impertinence, but is there a way to call someone a name that is nonverbal?
Yes. If I were to write on a piece of paper that you were an idiot, that would be non-verbal name calling.

Roderick Spear

Umm....

People, you got a little sidetracked it seems. You are talking about an improvement to this resolution, in which we don't have in the current resolution. Please, look at the resolution, and tell me, do you see anything about "Verbal Name calling"? I don't.

Now anyways, the definition is very vague and that can cause a few problems. Let's pretend we have nation C (since A & B are already taken). He is in the UN, and cannot perform torture. So, he signs an agreement with nation D. Nation D accepts, but first, they have to check what they have classified under as Extraordinary Rendition. If it is too small, you haven't stopped anything, and if it's too large, you prohibit even the softest case of rendition. This basically makes the definition too hard to work with, and as such, I like it how it is, and that is in the middle.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

My vote will be decided by my region. UN Delegate of Sicily

Forgive the impertinence, but is there a way to call someone a name that is nonverbal?

I mean, I suppose I could make the prisoner wear a shirt that reads "asshole", and has an arrow pointing to the neck opening, but that's really more labeling than calling, isn't it?
Yes. If I were to write on a piece of paper that you were an idiot, that would be non-verbal name calling.

Roderick Spear
For that matter, I'm sure that there are nations around here whose citizens are telepathic.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Despite the absurd ramblings of the delegations from Cluichstan, Hirota, and now Commonalitarianism, we voice our Full support for this much needed legislation. In particular, we would like to state emphatically that we support the definition of torture as written. We strongly advise the authors to disregard any further attempts to derail this discussion with spurious claims and accusations regarding the definition or its application.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Hæila Wythåefþ
Ambassador Emeritus. Special Advisor on Diplomacy and International Relations.

Naella Sìorrui
Attaché, Committee for State Security

For that matter, I'm sure that there are nations around here whose citizens are telepathic.You called?

Then again, it's considered highly rude (at best) and akin to rape (at worst) to go poking around in a person's head without their explicit permission, and is usually only done between family members or lovers. Except, of course, for the evesdropping standard. If you're talking loudly, you have to expect people to listen; if you're thinking very strongly about something, you have to expect psychics to pick up on it. Just as it's hard to ignore with the former, it's equally hard for the later.

But, don't worry. I don't go around reading your thoughts. No offence, but you're all kinda boring. And please don't take that as an insult. It's really and age and species thing, you know.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

He should be honest enough to admit that rather than hiding behind a spurious complaint.Hirota can vote however it chooses for whatever reason without needing to explain to anyone thank you oh so very much.

OOC: It's a shame actually - as promised I had got my suggestions written down over the weekend, sadly too late to suggest. No matter - this is going to pass, so one little abstention is hardly going to make a difference.

OOC:
Hirota can vote however it chooses for whatever reason without needing to explain to anyone thank you oh so very much.

OOC: It's a shame actually - as promised I had got my suggestions written down over the weekend, sadly too late to suggest. No matter - this is going to pass, so one little abstention is hardly going to make a difference.
Kind of begs the question why you would post in a debate topic if debate is beneath you, but whatever. Well, let's see your comments: if they're very strong, clearly I still have time to delete and redraft the proposal. In any case, they'll be interesting.

Kind of begs the question why you would post in a debate topic if debate is beneath you, but whatever.The discussion is not "beneath" me - I said that whatever my motives are for voting how I choose to vote are not open to questioning. I agree that if this discussion was "beneath" me, I would never post in this discussion. I obviously have posted in this discussion, so the point is moot.Well, let's see your comments: if they're very strong, clearly I still have time to delete and redraft the proposal. In any case, they'll be interesting.OOC:Maybe later, if I have time when I am at home.

Hirota can vote however it chooses for whatever reason without needing to explain to anyone thank you oh so very much.

OOC: It's a shame actually - as promised I had got my suggestions written down over the weekend, sadly too late to suggest. No matter - this is going to pass, so one little abstention is hardly going to make a difference.

The representative of Hirota is oh, so very correct. He is under no obligation to explain his vote to anyone. But he did so, didn't he? And the explanation was based on what we considered -- and still do -- a spurious reason. And when he posted that explanation, he opened the door to comment on it.

If the representative of Hirota doesn't want people criticizing his reason for voting, he should keep it to himself. When he posts a statement in this forum, we are under no obligation to remain silent on it, thank you oh, so very much.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

*snip*

Many thanks for the clarification and explanation.

Please expect the arrival of Concorde Patsy with a case of Intangible whisky by way of mitigating my earlier tone.

--Ben Royce

How exactly do you define physical and psychological violence? That could be an area of significant debate. How far is too far?

What about terrorists?

How exactly do you define physical and psychological violence? That could be an area of significant debate. How far is too far?
There is no need to define so generally understood a term as 'violence'; some degree of common sense has to prevail, or else all proposals would founder.
What about terrorists?
What about them?

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

We would support this proposal but the fact of outlawing interrogation, why don't you just make a law saying we can't hold terrorists in prision? Interrogation is to question and doesn't always fall under torture. We need to interrogate to get results especially if one is to defuse a potential imminate terrorist attack.

Alejandra Cannon
Aqua Anuien Ambassador

We would support this proposal but the fact of outlawing interrogation, why don't you just make a law saying we can't hold terrorists in prision? Interrogation is to question and doesn't always fall under torture. We need to interrogate to get results especially if one is to defuse a potential imminate terrorist attack.
Nothing in this proposal outlaws interrogation. As you yourself say, it doesn't necessitate torture: and where it doesn't, it is of course permitted.

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

To be honest, I'm going to take my chances on a massive protest of aggrieved parents that can't turn their children's lights off. That line of argument is positively Ceoranan in its absurdity. Come up with a sensible way by which the definitions are constricting or omitting, and I'll try to provide a sensible response; purposefully seeking out silly interpretations only to bicker is utterly pointless, given the burden of implementation lies with member nations.


Kind of begs the question why you would post in a debate topic if debate is beneath you, but whatever. Well, let's see your comments: if they're very strong, clearly I still have time to delete and redraft the proposal. In any case, they'll be interesting.

We strongly suggest that the ambassador from Quintessence of Dust stop making such unwarranted and unneeded personal attacks on his fellow UN members. The manner in which you address the people of this assembly shows absolutely no respect for your peers, and contributes nothing at all to this debate, unless you call unneeded tension and anger amonst the members of this organization a "contribution." If you truely want a constructive debate for your proposal, perhaps you would like it conducted in a respectful manner?

There is a difference between extradition and "sending prisoners elsewhere to be tortured".

Corect. The first is not being addressed by this proposal. The second is.



We strongly suggest that the ambassador from Quintessence of Dust stop making such unwarranted and unneeded personal attacks on his fellow UN members. The manner in which you address the people of this assembly shows absolutely no respect for your peers, and contributes nothing at all to this debate, unless you call unneeded tension and anger amonst the members of this organization a "contribution." If you truely want a constructive debate for your proposal, perhaps you would like it conducted in a respectful manner?

He is responding with roughly the same level of respect with which he is being treated, and better than most, including myself, would normally respond under the circumstances. Fact of the matter is that most, one would hope, will have the good sense to debate upon the facts of the matter and text of the proposal, instead of targetting the debate style of the author.

LAE support this proposal, as we agree with many arguments already presented here.

How exactly do you define physical and psychological violence? That could be an area of significant debate. How far is too far?

What about terrorists?

Our opinion on this matter, is that we cannot define every word used in NSUN proposals. Some are indeed important to define as, for example, "torture" here or "health care services" in Watarena/Ausserland current proposal, as they are central to a proposal and/or may have several/ambiguous meaning.

Then, for me, for words which are not defined in a proposal, the common definition in dictionnaries is the best to prevails.

NB: Qod, had you a previous incarnation in NS?

There is no need to define so generally understood a term as 'violence'; some degree of common sense has to prevail, or else all proposals would founder.

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


Not defining the word violence in this case creates a loophole, and a loophole that can and will be exploited. Someone could define "voilent" as cursing at them, or they could define "violent" as slamming a door, or they could define "violent" as expressing frustration. Is slamming a door torture? I think not.

People could also go on the other end of the spectrum with torture. What about sexual torture?

In terms of terrorists, if you had the opportunity to question a terrorist and get information out of him regarding a mass act of terrorism, would you just sit there and let him say "No, I'm not telling you anything". What then? What if a nuclear bomb went off and millions died? You could have tortured one terrorist or let millions die, what would you choose?

That's a risk that needs to be taken when one is dealing with a character limit. Further, people can pull whatever idiocy they want if they're truly determined:

"We define 'is outlawed' to mean 'we can do it if we really want to'."

At some point, authors need to assume that member nations have a certain degree of common sense and leave them to their own ends. You can't stop the idiots, and there's no sense in insulting the intelligence of the rest.

Not defining the word violence in this case creates a loophole, and a loophole that can and will be exploited. Someone could define "voilent" as cursing at them, or they could define "violent" as slamming a door, or they could define "violent" as expressing frustration. Is slamming a door torture? I think not.
It doesn't seem like you have a great understanding of how the NSUN works. Individual nations implement legislation: so if you don't think slamming a door constitutes torture, then you're under no obligation to enact law that says it is.

This means a few people will conjure up ridiculous interpretations. That can't be helped: in 3,500 characters, no legislation comprehensive enough to ensure rigid adherence could possibly be drafted, without everyone killing themselves of boredom. Besides, I'd prefer to have a little trust in the basic sensibilities of member nations: if I didn't have that, I'd hardly want my nation to be a part of this organization.

People could also go on the other end of the spectrum with torture. What about sexual torture?
Both physical and psychological.

In terms of terrorists, if you had the opportunity to question a terrorist and get information out of him regarding a mass act of terrorism, would you just sit there and let him say "No, I'm not telling you anything". What then? What if a nuclear bomb went off and millions died? You could have tortured one terrorist or let millions die, what would you choose?
I know the usual dodge to this is to simply say that torture doesn't work, and therefore any information obtained about the nuclear bomb would probably be unusable anyway. But even if the information were valuable, it would still be illicitly obtained. We have the basics of the rule of law, due process, fair trials, and such things, because there are certain fundamental rights that cannot be abridged, no matter how convenient it might seem to do so. So no, I wouldn't torture him. Before you remount: that wouldn't make me complicit in the explosion. And I'd also suggest that any interrogation system that requires resort to torture is probably going to have problems obtaining evidence anyway.

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

Is slamming a door torture? I think not.

*Assumes terrible bad-guy accent* Just move his fingers up a bit, Igor ...(SLAM)... And again ... (SLAM) ... Try it with the whole hand this time ...

The point of my little excursion into bad theatre is this: We could spend the rest of this debate propping up targets and knocking them down. We could spend it posing rhetorical questions and having smartarses like me answer them. Or we could just accept that violence occurs in torture, that current usage encompasses the word as applying to both mental and physical tortures, and that this proposal forbids "extraordinary rendition" to allow its application.

Then we could move on and decide whether we want to forbid it. My government's answer is yes, we do; so we've already forbidden ourselves to do it.

We also want the UN to forbid it to all member nations. This excellent proposal does that, and it doesn't stop there. It also forbids "any involvement" in it. So no matter how clever nations are at weaselling around human rights laws, if they touch this sort of pitch -- in any way, at any distance, with gloves, with re-definitions, at secure undisclosed locations, in any way -- the UN says they shall be defiled therewith.

To which we say, good on yer, UN. Nice catch.

As previously stated, we vote FOR.
____________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

"Were a new member 'round the UN... 'Case you wasn't familiar with Hyenya policy: We ain't got no leaders. We follow an "explicidly" straight forward constitution dictating what bills can'n cain't be accepted." Says the president of Hyenya in nothing more than a tank top and her boxer shorts.

"Whether'r not we can accept this bill's inconclusive cuz yer defenition'v torture's too loose. Until you or someone more compitant describes what this here bill actualy means by "Torture" I'm 'frad I cain't confirm'r deny its validety with our constitution."

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild will support this proposal. Perhaps the kind gentleman from QoD would consider a clearer definition of psychological torture as a compromise with small list of examples following such a phrase like:

Including, but not limited to...

I think it might lend some clarity.

As for what I see here, I am disappointed in the behavior of several rather senior nations in this debate. I do not see QoD as being completely at fault here, nor has he been unapproachable on the subject of changing this draft.

May I suggest going back to seperate corners, touch gloves and no hitting below the belt this time?

Naturally, no one is required to listen to me, but I just think this resolution is too important to be bickering like small children in the schoolyard. I consider extraordinary rendition as a heinous act. Let's give this issue the serious debate without namecalling (by either side) as it deserves, hmm?

Kind regards,

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Perhaps the kind gentleman from QoD would consider a clearer definition of psychological torture as a compromise with small list of examples following such a phrase like:Psst... it's at vote... it can't be altered...

We still don't like the definitions, nor are we pleased with the author's opening of a new debate to effectively brush our already stated objections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512918&highlight=rendition) under the rug.

We will be voting against this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Dear womanizing Sheikh,

You don't like the definitions? I think they are airtight... perhaps it is the reason why you don't like the definitions... or maybe it is because you didn't have the idea yourself?

Unless you convice me otherwise, I will think you are on the side of the torturers...

The GPRG will cast its vote in support of this resolution, and would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs on a job well done.

Linda Anaris
UN-Office
GPRG

To the esteemed Director Madison, I pose this question:

What effect, if any, does this resolution have on independently brokered extradition treaties between member nations? Does it render them null and void if one of the nations uses, say, waterboarding as an information-gathering technique?

As for the question of psychological torture, both the Sheik and the Director have valid points. For example, I'm not a Jew, so the psychological strain of being placed in a grave, being told it's mine by the surrounding group of conspicuously armed agents, being forced to then share it with a group of pigs, shellfish and a ham and swiss on white bread with mayonnaise, and then being told that I'll be killed in this state of impurity and therefore not enter heaven -- well, that wouldn't really be psychological torture to me, beyond the threat of imminent death. To a Jew or a Muslim, that's pretty severe.

But is it violent?

I approved this proposal, but am so far in the ABSTAIN column until my question about extradition is answered and the psychological component is resolved.

Benjamin Royce
Intangible Minister UN

Bingo. The UN doesn't interpret resolutions: you do. The UN provides the text, but nations oversee implementation. This is how, for example, the Federal Republic's Creative Solutions Agency managed to arrive at somewhat different conclusions regarding legislation's requirements than some other nations' governments did.

So you're in the clear. (Though I still find it strange that you'd need to render someone abroad, just to call them a name. That's a pretty expensive asshole.)


Calm down; it was just a turn of phrase. Nonetheless, I fully agree: there's no point discussing the absurd. Which was, uh, exactly what I was saying...


See above. Beyond that, you would only be subjected to their definitions inasmuch as they would probably disallow your rendering persons to them. Seriously, is a nation that views namecalling as a form of violence going to be your first choice of interrogation site? I would really, really doubt that. Extraordinary rendition only makes sense when rendering to nations with less restrictive laws: doing so to ones with more restrictive ones would be pointless, so isn't of any real concern.


Well, let's see:
- here, we accepted the need for a definition of torture (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1030&view=findpost&p=1699102)
- here, we changed to the use of 'person' (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1030&view=findpost&p=1713653)
- minor format suggestion adopted (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3216571)
- more formatting (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3220257)
- here we actively sought out answers to potential problems (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3243519)
- entire clause struck (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3254634)
- these changes were adopted (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3316611)
- once again questioned to make sure definition was ok (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3341805)
- small addition (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=176&view=findpost&p=3345836)

I make that 9. No, the drafting of this proposal wasn't perfect. But where helpful comments were offered, I did my best to incorporate them. Annoyingly, I've edited the first posts of the two original threads; the proposal now is quite different from that first draft. So once again: that others offered meaningful criticism and you petulent brattishness is nothing against me.


I've listened. And your two specific abuses have been that you might not be able to fly someone to another country just to have them called a name, and that parents might not be able to turn their children's lights off. When I said 'point out a serious abuse and I'll respond', I really did mean it; conjuring up banal trivialities doesn't come close.


See above. I counted nine criticisms taken on board.


One condemned torture; one reminded all states that they were prohibited from using torture.


Well, put it this way. You've accused me of not listening. Yet I have provided links of me...listening. So, yeah, it pretty much must be the nature of the comments. Maybe if you for five minutes put aside your obsessive need to get the last word on everything and avail yourself of every opportunity for the snide jab instead of the constructive comment, you'd find a greater audience.

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

M. Madison,

I think you should not fall into the sheikh's trap. He obviously doesn't know anything about the interpretation of law, and is currently doing what Sartre called "intellectual masturbation", or as I would call it "tretrapiloctomy", wich is the art of splitting hairs in four... Your explanations are quite sufficient, and if the representative of Cluichstan was as intelligent as he thinks he is, he would have gotten it already.

You have been more than patient with this individual, perhaps to the detriment of others who may have intelligent questions about your proposal. I am thinking mostly about questions regarding psychological torture, even if I think you are right about the fact that states will interpret laws as they see fit, sometimes to their disadvantage.

Yamaneko

I won't have time to debate for awhile, but I vote against this one. It will further interfere with our legitimate interrogations!

Would UN Nations still continue their practice of receiving people to torture? They'd just stop shipping them out of the UN?

Psst... it's at vote... it can't be altered...

It can fail and be resubmitted, same effect, just delayed.

"Were a new member 'round the UN... 'Case you wasn't familiar with Hyenya policy: We ain't got no leaders. We follow an "explicidly" straight forward constitution dictating what bills can'n cain't be accepted." Says the president of Hyenya in nothing more than a tank top and her boxer shorts.

"Whether'r not we can accept this bill's inconclusive cuz yer defenition'v torture's too loose. Until you or someone more compitant describes what this here bill actualy means by "Torture" I'm 'frad I cain't confirm'r deny its validety with our constitution."

Britney Spears? Is that you?

Psst... it's at vote... it can't be altered...

It's precisely such an alteration for which I was hoping before it reached the floor, but alas, now it is indeed too late.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm I voting for the proposal called Extraordinary Rendition which supports torture or am i voting for 'extraordinary rendition to be a subversion of international law and a significant threat to international human rights'.:confused: Do you see?

I'm I voting for the proposal called Extraordinary Rendition which supports torture or am i voting for 'extraordinary rendition to be a subversion of international law and a significant threat to international human rights'.:confused: Do you see?Try reading more than just the title...

Not defining the word violence in this case creates a loophole, and a loophole that can and will be exploited. Someone could define "voilent" as cursing at them, or they could define "violent" as slamming a door, or they could define "violent" as expressing frustration. Is slamming a door torture? I think not.


We could also redefine the language such that your last statement is a declaration that you are in full unqualified support of this proposal, and wish to do a tap dance wearing a tutu on the authors desk at the moment of its passage.

Dear womanizing Sheikh,

You don't like the definitions? I think they are airtight... perhaps it is the reason why you don't like the definitions... or maybe it is because you didn't have the idea yourself?

Unless you convice me otherwise, I will think you are on the side of the torturers...

He stated his reasons for objection. Repeatedly. Your failure to read his points does not place him under any obligation to prove himself to you. Nor does it justify your own declaration that they are airtight, when the author himself has declared that there is room for interpretation of the definitions.

Would UN Nations still continue their practice of receiving people to torture? They'd just stop shipping them out of the UN?

There are already laws on the UN books regarding the practice of torture within UN nations.

It's precisely such an alteration for which I was hoping before it reached the floor, but alas, now it is indeed too late.Me too, mainly because an alternative definition might have avoided such comments from Schwarzchild and co, and it would have made this discussion a tad easier to defend the proposal.

Dear womanizing Sheikh,

You don't like the definitions? I think they are airtight... perhaps it is the reason why you don't like the definitions... or maybe it is because you didn't have the idea yourself?

Unless you convice me otherwise, I will think you are on the side of the torturers...

Dear silly nooblet,

I'm under no obligation to convince you of anything. As the representative from Kivisto noted, the author himself has acknowledged that the definitions are not airtight.

Also, since your only comments in this body during your short stay here have been petty little jabs at me, I can only assume you've got some personal grief with me. If that's the case, take it up with me elsewhere. Such juvenile behaviour belongs, at best, on a playground, not in these hallowed halls.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I have read the whole thing. It needs a new title.

Me too, mainly because an alternative definition might have avoided such comments from Schwarzchild and co, and it would have made this discussion a tad easier to defend the proposal.

Frankly, had the definition in question been refined, we would most likely have been able to support this proposal (depending on how it ended up being refined, of course). There's nothing else wrong with it as far as we're concerned.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I have read the whole thing. It needs a new title.Why? It deals with extraordinary rendition, therefore, it is called Extraordinary Rendition. If it said "Promotion of Extraordinary Rendition", you might have a point.

Yeah that's an excellent idea vis a vis: Proposal: "Abolilition of Extraordinary Rendition". Clarity and disambiguate are just great.

Could I just point out the suggested addition was: 'Including, but not limited to...' That doesn't add anything in the way of definition: it merely provides some examples. Doing that has no value of exclusion, though. So I wouldn't call it redefinition at all: it's just enlightenment/exposition/explanation. It seemed to me the representative of Cluichstan was asking for the definition to actually be altered. The two are clearly distinct.

The reason I didn't include something along the lines of 'including, but not limited to...' is, as stated, because it adds nothing to the definition. If I said 'fruit, including but not limited to apples', that still wouldn't preclude lemons: yet that's exactly what your argument was - that it included things it shouldn't have. So I don't understand at all how the suggested alteration was 'exactly what you looking for', given it absolutely wasn't.

On the title, bear in mind the character limit of 30: 'Extraordinary Rendition' is already 23. Anyway, there are reasons to argue against this proposal: the title is the least significant one of all to pick, and it's a little bizarre, given the text makes it perfectly clear it's not endorsing the practice, but opposing it.

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

Could I just point out the suggested addition was: 'Including, but not limited to...' That doesn't add anything in the way of definition: it merely provides some examples. Doing that has no value of exclusion, though. So I wouldn't call it redefinition at all: it's just enlightenment/exposition/explanation. It seemed to me the representative of Cluichstan was asking for the definition to actually be altered. The two are clearly distinct.

Mr. Madison is correct. I was requesting that the definition be altered. He is also correct in stating that the suggested change in question here would have done nothing really.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Forgive me if this question has allready been answered and I missed it while going over the previous posts, but if the definition of psychological torture is up to interpretation by member nations, then does that not make the proposition a moot point? Whether accepted or not, there are guaranteed to be nations that will argue the point of definition and continue to act however they please. While I support the goal of the proposition I cannot accept the current definition of psychological torture. While it is not the place of the UN to interpret the law, I believe that more a more concrete definition is required so that member nations will be able to more readily comply.

Try reading more than just the title...But, but, that means work.:p

Yeah that's an excellent idea vis a vis: Proposal: "Abolilition of Extraordinary Rendition". Clarity and disambiguate are just great.
One problem with that idea, the title can't be more than a set number of characters and your suggestion is too long.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The representative of Sammorussia sees what this resolution is trying to acheive but it has a large problem. After reading it through, it is that the world is not a perfect place. If you look at it then it basically says that all of the member states must play by the rules while non-members can do what they want. If they captured a soldier of ours and tortured him/her, then there is very little we can do to stop it. But if we capture say a terrorist, we can't use whatever method is necessary to extract the information that we require. It makes the terrorists in a better position which isn't good. This would severely reduce our effectiveness in extracting information. The terrorist could just sit there, say nothing, do nothing because they know there is nothing we can do to get crucial intelligence out of him

Forgive me if this question has allready been answered and I missed it while going over the previous posts, but if the definition of psychological torture is up to interpretation by member nations, then does that not make the proposition a moot point? Whether accepted or not, there are guaranteed to be nations that will argue the point of definition and continue to act however they please. While I support the goal of the proposition I cannot accept the current definition of psychological torture. While it is not the place of the UN to interpret the law, I believe that more a more concrete definition is required so that member nations will be able to more readily comply.
There will probably be some nations who will seek out the most bizarre interpretation possible, yes. But then, any definition would fall short of such a high/ridiculous standard. In a reasonable understanding, 'physical or psychological violence' would obviously include acts that caused severe injury, trauma or stress: anyone saying they don't would be unlikely to accept any other interpretation. I have no rabid phobia of placing a little bit of trust that a vaguely reasonable approach will be taken: and in the context of a vaguely reasonable approach, I really don't think 'violence' need be defined. So I understand your concern, but I don't think a more concrete definition is needed, or even particularly desired.
The representative of Sammorussia sees what this resolution is trying to acheive but it has a large problem. After reading it through, it is that the world is not a perfect place. If you look at it then it basically says that all of the member states must play by the rules while non-members can do what they want. If they captured a soldier of ours and tortured him/her, then there is very little we can do to stop it. But if we capture say a terrorist, we can't use whatever method is necessary to extract the information that we require. It makes the terrorists in a better position which isn't good. This would severely reduce our effectiveness in extracting information. The terrorist could just sit there, say nothing, do nothing because they know there is nothing we can do to get crucial intelligence out of him
You are already prohibited from using torture...this resolution doesn't place a new restriction in that regard. And the existence of torture in non-member states is not really a reason to permit it in member states anyway: the 'but they can do it' attitude doesn't provide any particular justification.

As to the idea that torture is somehow a prerequisite for interrogation, I find this pretty bizarre. You'd have to field an astonishingly poor crop of interrogators for it to necessary to break out the thumbscrews every time you wanted to find out some information. If the terrorist has such resilience that they are able to withstand interrogation, why would they necessarily spill everything they know if exposed to torture?

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

I believe that more a more concrete definition is required so that member nations will be able to more readily comply.
We’d like to ask the representative if he can think of a more appropriate definition for something which has no material existence. How can a universal definition help compliance given the extraordinarily varying cultures within the UN?

Psychological violence is a necessary inclusion in the definition; otherwise member nations would be able to render to other countries and victims would be subjected to unspeakable non-physical anguish.

However, upon inclusion there is no way of adequately elaborating on the definition of “psychological violence” without entering into highly subjective realms of study.

Inclusion is the lesser of the evils in our opinion as at least it provides a base line protection to prisoners transported to other nations from psychological torture. It might not be perfect, as the esteemed author nation has admitted, however no definitions dealing with such a metaphysical area could be made “concrete” could it?

The only way we can see such an issue being solved is for the United Nations to be awarded a committee to review every single member nation's culture and create unique definitions of psychological torture for each on a regular basis in accordance with cultural change. We would prefer not to think about the expense, impracticality, and bureaucracy of such an endeavour!

We believe allowing a certain degree of flexibility whilst providing a base level of conduct seems like a much more reasonable compromise.

If they captured a soldier of ours and tortured him/her, then there is very little we can do to stop it. But if we capture say a terrorist, we can't use whatever method is necessary to extract the information that we require.

With respect we believe that this is more relevant to previously passed torture legislation and conventions regarding the treatment of POWs, not extraordinary rendition as your complaint seems to concerns interrogation tactics within nations.

then there is very little we can do to stop it.
Whilst we're unaware of your nation's attitude to military operations, we'd recommend sending an extraction force should such an event occur.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

EDIT: already a far more eloquent reply above. I need to type quicker don't I? :D

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution. Extraordinary rendition is a slimy, underhanded practice in which no decent, respectable nation would engage. It deserves to be outlawed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution. Extraordinary rendition is a slimy, underhanded practice in which no decent, respectable nation would engage. It deserves to be outlawed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Agreed. The Federation is certainly in favor of solid international legislation addressing the abuse of the friendliness of less conscientous nations in an effort to commit atrocities indirectly and without being held accountable.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Corect. The first is not being addressed by this proposal. The second is.


The Kivistan Ambassador would be well advised to read the remainder of my posts in this thread before condescending.

I know what this resolution proposes. My question was, and continues to be, could extradition treaties be affected by this resolution, and if so, under what circumstances? I received a largely satisfactory answer from QoD, who has said that my scenario of an extradition treaty being superseded is certainly plausible. This law would ban (or allow nations to refuse) extradition to coutries where torture is believed to be an element of any sentence/punishment handed down by the other country's judiciary.

And yes, future posters, I know a treaty isn't a law, but it is an international contract with potential penalties for its breach...that is, depending upon what the signatories' agreements were as written therein.

I am mostly satisfied and have voted FOR this resolution -- in spite of the nature of some of my well-meaning colleagues and their tone.

To respond to declarations of helplessness, allow me to offer alternatives of physical power and strength.

If they captured a soldier of ours and tortured him/her, then there is very little we can do to stop it.

Nuke them into the stone age. Better yet, nuke them into the cretaceous period. Ensure through this example that none will consider doing such harm to any of your citizens ever again.

The terrorist could just sit there, say nothing, do nothing because they know there is nothing we can do to get crucial intelligence out of him

Sentence them to death. Execute them in a horrific and painful fashion. Declare war on their home nation, or any nation that houses any of their terrorist compatriots. Nuke them into a period of organic development just this side of the big bang.


I'm not suggesting that any of those suggestions are the best choice, I'm simply putting forward that you are far from powerless simply because you can't pull someone's toenails out with a pair of rusty pliers, nor will you be rendered any more powerless by losing the power to send them to another country to have their entrails streamered across a tree.

M. Madison,

I think you should not fall into the sheikh's trap. He obviously doesn't know anything about the interpretation of law, and is currently doing what Sartre called "intellectual masturbation", or as I would call it "tretrapiloctomy", wich is the art of splitting hairs in four... Your explanations are quite sufficient, and if the representative of Cluichstan was as intelligent as he thinks he is, he would have gotten it already.

You have been more than patient with this individual, perhaps to the detriment of others who may have intelligent questions about your proposal. I am thinking mostly about questions regarding psychological torture, even if I think you are right about the fact that states will interpret laws as they see fit, sometimes to their disadvantage.

Yamaneko

Ambassador Yamaneko, you have quoted me in this post. Why? Is this your way of suggesting that I am somehow contributing to your discomfort or aiding and abetting "the Sheik's trap" (whatever that is)?

I respect your vocabulary if not your context, Madame Ambassador. If I have offended, such was not my intention, and you will not have an apology for it.

Please explain,

Benjamin Alati Royce
Intangible minister to the UN for Greater Seattle

Yeah that's an excellent idea vis a vis: Proposal: "Abolilition of Extraordinary Rendition". Clarity and disambiguate are just great.

Sorry, but that's why you must read beyond the title.

The representative of Sammorussia sees what this resolution is trying to acheive but it has a large problem. After reading it through, it is that the world is not a perfect place. If you look at it then it basically says that all of the member states must play by the rules while non-members can do what they want. If they captured a soldier of ours and tortured him/her, then there is very little we can do to stop it. But if we capture say a terrorist, we can't use whatever method is necessary to extract the information that we require. It makes the terrorists in a better position which isn't good. This would severely reduce our effectiveness in extracting information. The terrorist could just sit there, say nothing, do nothing because they know there is nothing we can do to get crucial intelligence out of him

What Extraordinary Rendition is doing is forbidding sending prisoners to places that DO allow torture (non-UN nations, for example) in order to outsource your morally-questionable dirty work.

UN law expressly prohibits UN nations from using torture. This resolution closes the loophole of sending your torturees to a non-UN nation.

Right?

We’d like to ask the representative if he can think of a more appropriate definition for something which has no material existence. How can a universal definition help compliance given the extraordinarily varying cultures within the UN?

Psychological violence is a necessary inclusion in the definition; otherwise member nations would be able to render to other countries and victims would be subjected to unspeakable non-physical anguish.

However, upon inclusion there is no way of adequately elaborating on the definition of “psychological violence” without entering into highly subjective realms of study.

Inclusion is the lesser of the evils in our opinion as at least it provides a base line protection to prisoners transported to other nations from psychological torture. It might not be perfect, as the esteemed author nation has admitted, however no definitions dealing with such a metaphysical area could be made “concrete” could it?

The only way we can see such an issue being solved is for the United Nations to be awarded a committee to review every single member nation's culture and create unique definitions of psychological torture for each on a regular basis in accordance with cultural change. We would prefer not to think about the expense, impracticality, and bureaucracy of such an endeavour!

We believe allowing a certain degree of flexibility whilst providing a base level of conduct seems like a much more reasonable compromise.



With respect we believe that this is more relevant to previously passed torture legislation and conventions regarding the treatment of POWs, not extraordinary rendition as your complaint seems to concerns interrogation tactics within nations.


Whilst we're unaware of your nation's attitude to military operations, we'd recommend sending an extraction force should such an event occur.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

EDIT: already a far more eloquent reply above. I need to type quicker don't I? :D

To respond to declarations of helplessness, allow me to offer alternatives of physical power and strength.



Nuke them into the stone age. Better yet, nuke them into the cretaceous period. Ensure through this example that none will consider doing such harm to any of your citizens ever again.



Sentence them to death. Execute them in a horrific and painful fashion. Declare war on their home nation, or any nation that houses any of their terrorist compatriots. Nuke them into a period of organic development just this side of the big bang.


I'm not suggesting that any of those suggestions are the best choice, I'm simply putting forward that you are far from powerless simply because you can't pull someone's toenails out with a pair of rusty pliers, nor will you be rendered any more powerless by losing the power to send them to another country to have their entrails streamered across a tree.

Hear, hear! on both counts, hear, hear! Well said, both of you.

Psst... it's at vote... it can't be altered...

Psst. Thank you.

*slams his fist oh his desk* I OBJECT! Total Supremity has been using torture on convicts for a long time now! and ill have you know that it has been working slpendidly.....we have allowed you to change our laws long enough! all the other ones we lost to we allowed into our nation without complaint but this will not stand!:gundge: i say nay! everyone who agrees with me, i say we stand together on this issue.....what you do in your own nation shouldnt affect ours! whats next? abolishing taxes?! ill have you know that we are a better country for taxes and my region stands behind me..

*sits down, red in the face and fuming*

Total Supremacy, you do know the reason of the UN IS to make national laws more unified right? If not, now you do. If you don't like that, than fine.

Anyhow, this resolution will bar the practice of send a person from one area to go to another country only too be tortured because laws in affect make it impossible to torture nations in your country. If you practice torture, you shouldn't make that big of an effect, unless you do extraordinary rendition, and in that case, you will have less legislation to deal with.

Um...

You do realize that torture is already banned?

And that this bans extraordinary rendition, not torture.

Please learn to read and return. (Or better, don't.)

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

OOC EDIT: Ack! I need to post faster.

Firstly, we wish to welcome the esteemed representative from Total Supremity to this organisation and we’re glad to see that he has great passion for the resolutions being debated by the GA.

However, we wouldn’t recommend the representative hit his fit too hard as the all powerful UN gnomes will punish him for it… and unless he votes FOR this resolution then they’ll be able to send him and his delegation to a non-member state to torture them by subjecting them to the anguish of gluing veneer on to flat pack office furniture for the rest of time.

We don’t believe you’d find that appealing would you?

what you do in your own nation shouldn’t affect ours!
This law doesn’t affect what we do in our own nation nor does it affect what you do in yours actually! It affects what we do in other nations and if your nation truly has been using torture then you’re in violation of previously passed legislation and will be punished, in a non-torturous manner, by the Compliance Ministry.

everyone who agrees with me, i say we stand together on this issue

*Anravelle points to the vote tally*

We believe you can, the AGAINST vote details all of those who have taken a political stand in opposition to this resolution. However, should you have meant “stand together” in the literal fashion we’d certainly welcome the entertaining break watching over 1,000 people squeeze into a small space would bring.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

OOC: I forgot to press submit again. :(

While this proposal DOES neglect to forbid torture within your OWN country, We of the Satanic Horde of Necronomika do not agree with blocking member nations from shipping people to other nations (such as ours) to receive torture. We make a great deal of money off this 'service' and it would hurt our national economy to do anything to diminish the Torture Business.

In addition, we want our criminals deported back here for us to deal with. We cannot allow errant citizens to believe that they can escape severe punishment by fleeing to a neighboring country (regardless of the fact that no other nations reside in the Godless Continent. We're talking about principle here.)

High Priest and UN Delegate
Satanic Horde of Necronomika

While this proposal DOES neglect to forbid torture within your OWN country, We of the Satanic Horde of Necronomika do not agree with blocking member nations from shipping people to other nations (such as ours) to receive torture. We make a great deal of money off this 'service' and it would hurt our national economy to do anything to diminish the Torture Business.

*sigh* Anyone keeping count of how many times this has been said? I didn't think to start a count.

There is already UN legislation prohibiting member nations from using Torture. This will not affect your capacity, or incapacity to torture people.

In addition, we want our criminals deported back here for us to deal with. We cannot allow errant citizens to believe that they can escape severe punishment by fleeing to a neighboring country (regardless of the fact that no other nations reside in the Godless Continent. We're talking about principle here.)


And then we move on to the Right To Refuse Extradition, which is another matter entirely. Wow. You managed to nail two of the most closely related resolutions to this one, without actually managing to form or state anything at all of any value to the matter at hand. Bravo.

Come on, torture is the only way to get what you want!! Without torture we might never be able to arrest really dangerous people. So I say this is a terrible Resolution!

Sigh.

Ambassador Yamaneko, you have quoted me in this post. Why? Is this your way of suggesting that I am somehow contributing to your discomfort or aiding and abetting "the Sheik's trap" (whatever that is)?

I respect your vocabulary if not your context, Madame Ambassador. If I have offended, such was not my intention, and you will not have an apology for it.

Please explain,

Benjamin Alati Royce
Intangible minister to the UN for Greater Seattle

M. Royce,

It was not my intention to offend you in any way whatsoever; I was merely trying to point out to the representative of "Quintessence of Dust" the uselessness of engaging in a discussion with such a contemptuous individual as the Ambassador of Cluichstan, instead of answering people like you, who might have a more valid (and polite) interrogation about psychological torture. The "trap" I was referring to was the need of the Sheick for attention; and by being so insulting and contemptuous, he provoques a response. His attitude and air of superiority reminds me of why I switched from being an author at Wikipedia and went to Citizendium (I know I sometimes make obscure jokes, so if you don't get it, Google "Citizendium").

That being said, let's examine your point for a moment. From what I have been able to gather from your comments, you seem to want a more precise definition of "psychological torture". I do understand your concern; you are afraid that by not curtailing the definition more precisely, a lot of Nations will find loopholes around the law. I is a legitimate concern, and I might be of some help.

Anyone studying the history of law will notice that the laws that age the worst are the ones with extensive definitions of their content. It might seem counterintuitive, like probability theory, but it is true nonetheless. The main reason is that the definition of something as intangible as "psychological torture", for example, rarely resist the test of time, because as time goes by, individual (or States), or simply circumstances reveal situations that are cases of psychological torture, but because they were not foreseen in the law, cannot be treated as such. The situation is made worse when you take into account the importance of jurisprudence in defining the interpretation of the laws. The more precise the definitions, the less you can use the jurisprudence in admitting new cases of psychological torture that were not in the aforementionned definitions. There are a number of cases like this in national laws of countries such as France, Canada, England ant the US, for example. I can quote some of those examples if you so desire.

In fact, you have very noble intentions, but if we define the concept of psychological torture further than the following: "Any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, or to obtain confessions (true or false) for propaganda or political purposes may be called torture. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments. A moral definition of torture proposes that the sin of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain" or furthermore, as defined by the UN itself: "any process to obtain mental and moral degradation without the use of violence, and often as quickly as practicable
Blackmail
Harm to friends or strangers, threatened, or carried out, and blamed on the victim
Being forced to witness atrocities, perhaps against family or persons with whom the victim identifies
Being forced to commit atrocities, perhaps against family, friends or allies
Forced witnessing of or participation in sexual activity
Being forced to watch acts of sexual abuse
Covert (non-contact) or other forced incest
Being Bullied
Shaming and public humiliation, being stripped or displayed naked, public condemnation
Shunning
Being dirty, self-fouled, urinated on, or covered with fecal matter
Headshaving (especially women)
Racial, sexual, religious or other verbal abuse against any characteristic of the victim
Being tricked into lying, or statements conflicting with past statements during interrogation.
Being forced to renounce or betray political, national, other strong affiliations or loyalties
Being coerced into denying one’s religion or morals, blasphemy, or religious degradation
Conditions of detention
Being subjected to nonstop interrogation for long periods
Shouting and taunting
Mock execution and horrific experiences
Starvation, cold and damp
Extended solitary confinement
Partial or total sensory deprivation
Continual or unpredictable noise
Alterations to room temperature
Cramping, confinement, ball and chain, shackling
Being held incommunicado
Being kept in confined spaces
Extended sleep deprivation
Being forced to sleep on hard surfaces
Exploitation of phobias, e.g. leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders
Forced labor, other coercion into excessive physical activity

...makes us deviate from what we intend to do, because if we define more, there will always be a state that can find a loophole. And the point is, as counterintuitive as it may seem, you find more loopholes with laws having thight definitions than laws with loose ones.

I understand your concern, I really do, but I hope you will see that the cure you seek in this instance, could be worse than the disease.

I hope I laid you fears to rest on that subject. I would like to add that your point on extradition has been adressed in posts after soon before your last one, and if you have any more question on the subject, do not hesitate to ask.

Again, I want to apologize for the misunderstanding I might have created; I certainly didn't want to put you in the same bag as the representative of Cluichstan, and I hope this individual could understand what I just wrote, but I doubt it. You displayed correct manners, and that is why you deserve an honest (and also polite!) answer.

Yves Lévesque
Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Sigh.

Oddly enough, I find myself in complete agreement with that sigh.

le sigh

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador, Commonwealth of Schwartzchild

Ambassador Zyryanov mutters something about it being a shame there's no mandatory intelligence or at least reading test to be passed before voting in the UN.

Oh, and Ariddia votes Yea, of course.

The nation of Bazalonia is happy that it's region has decided to support such legislation so it can vote FOR this proposal.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/t-220386035.jpghttp://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/RetiredWerepenguinsBanner.gif

After lengthy analysis and considerable debate between myself and my secretary Red Hot I have determined that conch fritters are indeed tasty.

After reading the resolution I am still puzzled about the need for it. Torture is already prohibited by UN members, not just in their own nations but everywhere by those nations.

You can't torture on the plains.
You can't torture in airplanes.
You can't troture in the air.
You can't torture anywhere.

Extraordinary Rendition is based on the false assumption that you can somehow avoid UN laws by not being on your own native soil. Sure that may work in the fictional fantasy game of the "Real World" where nations routinely ignore the laws of both the UN and their own government, but not here.

This resolution, therefore, does nothing!
We choose to take off the goggles!
Retired Werepenguins votes NO.

After reading the resolution I am still puzzled about the need for it. Torture is already prohibited by UN members, not just in their own nations but everywhere by those nations.

You can't torture on the plains.
You can't torture in airplanes.
You can't troture in the air.
You can't torture anywhere.

Extraordinary Rendition is based on the false assumption that you can somehow avoid UN laws by not being on your own native soil. Sure that may work in the fictional fantasy game of the "Real World" where nations routinely ignore the laws of both the UN and their own government, but not here.That's true, however the argument is that you can pass on prisoners to nations outside of UN mandate, where torture is not illegal and the UN has no power to prevent torture.

Greetings all,

While The Orthodox Republics supports protecting the sanctity of human life, we find the term 'punishment' entirely to vague. Should we choose to incarcerate a murderer? It is in our law to do so, but this would deprive that person of the ability to walk in a park, visit family or otherwise enjoy the life of other citizens. This could be construed as having a 'psychologocal' effect. We support the idea that this measure is attempting to accomplish but find in it the possibility of extending too far into our right to protect law-abiding society from malefactors. We will vote against it and hope that a new and more clearly written document may be submitted.

Metropolitan Michael
Orthodox Republics

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/t-220386035.jpghttp://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/RetiredWerepenguinsBanner.gif

After lengthy analysis and considerable debate between myself and my secretary Red Hot I have determined that conch fritters are indeed tasty.

After reading the resolution I am still puzzled about the need for it. Torture is already prohibited by UN members, not just in their own nations but everywhere by those nations.

You can't torture on the plains.
You can't torture in airplanes.
You can't troture in the air.
You can't torture anywhere.

Extraordinary Rendition is based on the false assumption that you can somehow avoid UN laws by not being on your own native soil. Sure that may work in the fictional fantasy game of the "Real World" where nations routinely ignore the laws of both the UN and their own government, but not here.

This resolution, therefore, does nothing!
We choose to take off the goggles!
Retired Werepenguins votes NO.

Our distinguished colleague is, unfortunately, mistaken. The unfortunately worded NSUNR #41, "End Barbaric Punishments", does prohibit your nation from torturing people during interrogations or as a punishment. It could also be argued that it would prevent you from having another nation torture someone for you as a punishment for a crime, although that is unclear.

That resolution, though, clearly does not ban extraordinary rendition for the purposes of interrogation. There is nothing in that resolution that would stop an NSUN nation from shipping someone off to a non-UN nation to be tortured as an interrogation device. That's precisely the gaping loophole that this resolution is intended to fill.

In a case of extraordinary rendition, your nation is not doing the torturing. Another nation is, on your behalf.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You know, I was thinking about leaving this one alone, but I just can't. I'm hoping that the representative of The Kootstras was intending to be sarcastic. If so, then I apologize for missing the tone.

Come on, torture is the only way to get what you want!!

I find that buying people dinner or a drink works fairly well. Barring that, there are escort services that hire out for a wide variety of needs. Torture might end the evening off, but only if the lady has the stomache for the sight of my blood.

Without torture we might never be able to arrest really dangerous people.

How does the ability to torture factor into your capacity to arrest people?

So I say this is a terrible act!

Which? The proposal, or the act of torture? If it's the second, then we are in agreement. If it's the first.....the more I hear from individuals who holler on about their right to torture people, the more inclined I feel to actively support this proposal.

Ambassador Zyryanov mutters something about it being a shame there's no mandatory intelligence or at least reading test to be passed before voting in the UN.

Nah, just make them wear a sign.....hey...that reminds me... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11500165&postcount=3022)

Greetings all,

While The Orthodox Republics supports protecting the sanctity of human life, we find the term 'punishment' entirely to vague. Should we choose to incarcerate a murderer? It is in our law to do so, but this would deprive that person of the ability to walk in a park, visit family or otherwise enjoy the life of other citizens. This could be construed as having a 'psychologocal' effect. We support the idea that this measure is attempting to accomplish but find in it the possibility of extending too far into our right to protect law-abiding society from malefactors. We will vote against it and hope that a new and more clearly written document may be submitted.

Metropolitan Michael
Orthodox Republics

This law deals only with your ability to send the prisoner to another nation for the purposes of torture. This bill does not deal with what occurs in your own nation. There are other bills that do, mind you, but they are not up for vote at the moment.

*snip*

Ambassador Levesque,

I am most gratified at your detailed explanation of psychological torture and the following explanation for why it can't be detailed in the current resolution at vote.

However, while I did post at one point that one person's psychological torture is another person's way of spending an evening (with a bottle of wine, good food, and a "safe" word agreed upon earlier), my concern since then has been the potential effect of this resolution upon international extradition treaties. That point was covered well enough by others that I was content to vote FOR this resolution.

I realize that international law outweighs a treaty, even if that treaty is with a non-UN nation. So any extradition treaty a UN nation has with a non-UN nation whose interrogation methods include torture will be struck null and void by this resolution. Since UN law already bans torture within UN nations, that was a sizeable loophole -- now we no longer allow you to outsource your torture to nations not bound by UN prohibitions.

A noble and achievable goal.

Again, Ambassador Levesque, you have my thanks. I would advise some kind of therapy to aid you in getting over Sheik bin Cluich. True, I was irritated by him at first, too, but came to see him as a valuable counterwieght and sounding board for this Assembly. I can't make, or even suggest, you like him, but he's a vital part of the NSUN, and I'd be sorry to see the arrogant, caustic jackass leave. In short, you'll have to build a bridge and get over it, because I can't imagine anyone wanting to read your jabs at him with every response you post. And that would be bad, because you've got a lot to say.

Regards,

Benjamin Alati Royce, I.M.U.N.

Am I the only one that finds clause one far, FAR too vague? Demetriopolis has banned torture, but this bans any physical or psychological violence used even for punishment. Does this mean I can't have prisons? That is psychological and sometimes physical used for punishment. Demetriopolis urges a revision of the definition of torture, lest we find ourselves completely unable to even punish our own prisoners!

Am I the only one that finds clause one far, FAR too vague? Demetriopolis has banned torture, but this bans any physical or psychological violence used even for punishment. Does this mean I can't have prisons? That is psychological and sometimes physical used for punishment. Demetriopolis urges a revision of the definition of torture, lest we find ourselves completely unable to even punish our own prisoners!

This resolution does NOTHING about prisons or incarceration or indeed ANYTHING within your own nation. It simply forbids you from sending anyone outside your borders to be tortured by a nation not covered by the UN's laws against torture (i.e., a non-UN state or entity).

That's all, nothing else.

All of you complaining about the lack of definition for psychological violence, shut up. You want to exploit it as a loophole? Go ahead. There are loopholes in just about every UN resolution. I have gone as far as to appoint an aide whose job is solely to find the loopholes. I have a long list of all the loopholes, and when needed Paradica exploits them. For example, did you know that it is in fact possible to ban incest under Sexual Privacy Act?

Ahem, going off topic there. The point is, the people complaining about this undefined word are the SAME PEOPLE who would shoot down a repeal of, for example Ban Trafficking in Persons (and such a repeal was submitted by my predecessor) if that repeal's main argument is undefined words. You don't really dislike this for the undefined word, you just don't like it and you can't think of a better argument.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador
Charisian UN Delegate

PS I am proud to announce that the region of Charis, which I represent, has voted in favour of this resolution, and my "FOR" can be officially registered now.

While I would personally agree with this as a citizen, it eliminates an important tool in gathering intelligence that has been used since the dawn of man. While I may personally agree on the immorality of torture, desperate times call for desperate measures. The sovereignty and safety of nations to determine what is best for them is enough to defeat this issue.

There are many methods to find out information. Depending on the culture and mindset, for example, one may be immune to torture and not cave in, but using kindness could lead to more information being extracted. There is no one size fits all approach for dealing with other nations or peoples. Our government, though, has always endorsed policies dealing with basic human rights. People should have a basic level of dignity and even if they have perpetrated terrible acts they should be accorded basic levels of living. The faliure to inact this standard downgrades them to a lower lifeform as of an animal. Maybe lower, since some view and treat animals akin to humans. If we denegrate others in a gambit of power or for our own means, then where would we draw the line? It is of high importance that we ensure all people have basic food, shelter, and be treated in at least a minimal level of descency psychologicolally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically.

I am not complaining about loopholes, I am stating the opposite. The carelessness of teh defintion of torture, which is defining what is being outlawed here, is overreaching. Once again, it says that torture would ban physical/psychological PUNISHMENTS. It does not say who these punishments are against, nor what these punishments are limited to.

I would say that passing this resolution would prevent a better revision to be proposed.

There are many methods to find out information. Depending on the culture and mindset, for example, one may be immune to torture and not cave in, but using kindness could lead to more information being extracted. There is no one size fits all approach for dealing with other nations or peoples. Our government, though, has always endorsed policies dealing with basic human rights. People should have a basic level of dignity and even if they have perpetrated terrible acts they should be accorded basic levels of living. The faliure to inact this standard downgrades them to a lower lifeform as of an animal. Maybe lower, since some view and treat animals akin to humans. If we denegrate others in a gambit of power or for our own means, then where would we draw the line? It is of high importance that we ensure all people have basic food, shelter, and be treated in at least a minimal level of descency psychologicolally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically.

I don't know about your criminals/terrorists, but our's only understand one thing, and it isn't kindness. No, torture isn't our only tool for interrogations, but it is ONE tool, and sometimes a neccesary one. Frankly, my government would have no problem with this resolution, except for the existing UN laws preventing us from conducting a proper interrogation in Durko.

I don't know about your criminals/terrorists, but our's only understand one thing, and it isn't kindness. No, torture isn't our only tool for interrogations, but it is ONE tool, and sometimes a neccesary one. Frankly, my government would have no problem with this resolution, except for the existing UN laws preventing us from conducting a proper interrogation in Durko.

So what you're saying is that you're against this resolution because it will close the backdoor of another resolution that you've been exploiting. That's great. At least you're being honest about it.

[QUOTE=Kivisto;12198289]You know, I was thinking about leaving this one alone, but I just can't. I'm hoping that the representative of The Kootstras was intending to be sarcastic. If so, then I apologize for missing the tone.

The Duk'H Nafi apologizes on behalf of the Kootstras, as they are our representatives and allies. There was, I assure you, an intended slight sarcastic tone, but it does express their main point...

Spies are not idiots. Taking them out to dinner will not get you what you need.

We live in an age where information is more vital than most anything else. Spies are trained agents in gathering this information, classified or not. It is often importent to discover what they know and what they found out. Torture is the single means by which this is possible. Torture is not a leisure sport... it is often vital and necessary to maintain a country's saftey. I do not believe I need to write all people that may need to be torture, such as crime syndicate leaders, etc. but let me make one more point...

As mentioned innumerable times earlier, it is already illegal to torture in ALL UN countries; this resolution simply makes it illegal to ship criminals to other countries to be tortured.

May the Duk'H Nafi make a final note: if it IS made illegal to ship criminals, then would not countries simply ship them for other "intentions"?

The Duk'H Nafi will vote against this resolution. We hope you do the same.






PS: Sorry about the strange format of the qoute above. How do you make those fancy boxes?

While we, in Matianus, had been watching from affar, determined to abstain and stay out of this rather ugly looking mess, it seems that the people have recently been voting out legislation in what our political advisors can only say is a way to vent rage towards some issue or another. After looking at the media for a small amount of time, it became apparent that this issue was the primary cause of Matianus' concerns, considering our own apparent state of war that was forced onto us.

In any case, after reviewing the arguments provided, and questioning the resolution with our own, we have found that the advantages of such a resolution would ultimately be greater than the detriments. So, we vote For.

PS: Sorry about the strange format of the qoute above. How do you make those fancy boxes? [/quote] ends the quote box.

Spies are not idiots. Taking them out to dinner will not get you what you need.

We live in an age where information is more vital than most anything else. Spies are trained agents in gathering this information, classified or not. It is often importent to discover what they know and what they found out. Torture is the single means by which this is possible. Torture is not a leisure sport... it is often vital and necessary to maintain a country's saftey. I do not believe I need to write all people that may need to be torture, such as crime syndicate leaders, etc. but let me make one more point...


We'd just like to comment on this part of the honorable representative's remarks, particularly the statement we've bolded. We share his concern for security of information. And he's entirely correct that discovering what an espionage agent has unearthed and reported is often a vital part of a counterintelligence effort. But we're afraid he's laboring under a couple of misconceptions.

Torture is by no means the only method of finding out what information has been compromised. There are other, very effective means of doing so (e.g., analysis of follow-on taskings, "turning" an agent).

Spies are not always trained, and many times are not well-trained at all. Intelligence officers are usually well-trained, but the agents used by them often receive little or no training in collection operations. Many cases in the mythical land of real life demonstrate this. And, with all respect, we got a small chuckle out of his example of taking a spy out to dinner. Establishing rapport through just such social contact is one way to begin an effort to "turn" or "double" an agent.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This restricts our ability to defend our homeland. There is a time and place for torture, why, once when I was a lad, my brother took my favorite car. In order to find it I had to put him in a chicken wing and threaten him with a wedgie. Needless to say, he buckled and gave it up almost immediately!!

Torture as a means to an end, mainly the securement of intelligence data on subjects of ill repute, is certainly fine in our book.

This is too restrictive!

Oduibne, Grand Poo Ba
Kingdom of Oduibne

Ambassador Levesque,

I am most gratified at your detailed explanation of psychological torture and the following explanation for why it can't be detailed in the current resolution at vote.

However, while I did post at one point that one person's psychological torture is another person's way of spending an evening (with a bottle of wine, good food, and a "safe" word agreed upon earlier), my concern since then has been the potential effect of this resolution upon international extradition treaties. That point was covered well enough by others that I was content to vote FOR this resolution.

I realize that international law outweighs a treaty, even if that treaty is with a non-UN nation. So any extradition treaty a UN nation has with a non-UN nation whose interrogation methods include torture will be struck null and void by this resolution. Since UN law already bans torture within UN nations, that was a sizeable loophole -- now we no longer allow you to outsource your torture to nations not bound by UN prohibitions.

A noble and achievable goal.

Again, Ambassador Levesque, you have my thanks. I would advise some kind of therapy to aid you in getting over Sheik bin Cluich. True, I was irritated by him at first, too, but came to see him as a valuable counterwieght and sounding board for this Assembly. I can't make, or even suggest, you like him, but he's a vital part of the NSUN, and I'd be sorry to see the arrogant, caustic jackass leave. In short, you'll have to build a bridge and get over it, because I can't imagine anyone wanting to read your jabs at him with every response you post. And that would be bad, because you've got a lot to say.

Regards,

Benjamin Alati Royce, I.M.U.N.

Esteemed Ambassador,

I am glad that you appreciated my explanations on the aforementionned subject; let us hope, however, that more and more nations will join the UN in the future and abide by its laws, so that rendition outside the UN could cease...

On the subject of my "therapy", perhaps you are right in advising restraint on my part. However, it has been my experience, in classes or teams, that such individuals, even though it might seem they are "a valuable counterweight and sounding board" for a group, often crush others who might think about participating, but do not because they are afraid of the consequences. Most of the time, theses persons are the most likely to contribute greatly to the discussion; believe me, I talk from experience. I often noticed that by me destroying the bully, the nerds seemed to come out of their closets. I do not question the Sheick's intelligence, just his attitude, wich I think is detrimental to the greater exchange of ideas within the group. I am sure you will agree with me that we need more nerds to do their "coming out"!!! I could add that there is even game-theoretical evidence on this subject, in n-person game theory...

But I will follow your recommendation in the future; I just thought I needed to explain why I was so rash towards the Sheick. A MENSA colleague of mine recently confessed to me that the level of intelligence had increased since I had ridden a group we were participating in from its bully...

Anyway, enough of that; I also had a question to ask you: do you think there should be more discussion on the proposition at hand, or should we leave the matter as is (I mean rendition), and let jurisprudence more clearly define our attitude toward non-member states? I must admit I am not sure of my position on that, perhaps you can help me.

Waiting for your valuable input on this subject,

Yves Lévesque
Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Ambassador Jackson leaps up onto his desk and, with cigarette dangling from his lips and shirt unbuttoned to his navel, peels off an extremely loud¹ and reverberating cover of “The Anacreontic Song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Anacreon_in_Heaven)” on his favorite Stratocaster².

When finished, he looks down at the stunned diplomats and, after several seconds, says:

“Uhhhhh ... so .... ahhhh ... I guess that ain't what you meant by 'extraordinary rendition'...

“Ah, what the Hell – we'll vote for it anyway.”

¹Specifically, with the volume set on “11”.

²The one with the black polyester finish and maple fretboard.

It was not my intention to offend you in any way whatsoever; I was merely trying to point out to the representative of "Quintessence of Dust" the uselessness of engaging in a discussion with such a contemptuous individual as the Ambassador of Cluichstan, instead of answering people like you, who might have a more valid (and polite) interrogation about psychological torture. The "trap" I was referring to was the need of the Sheick for attention; and by being so insulting and contemptuous, he provoques a response. His attitude and air of superiority reminds me of why I switched from being an author at Wikipedia and went to Citizendium (I know I sometimes make obscure jokes, so if you don't get it, Google "Citizendium").

*snip*

This again? Give it a rest already. As I stated before, this is not the forum for your personal gripes with me. Take them up with me personally, if you like, but please leave them out of this debate.

In fact, you have very noble intentions, but if we define the concept of psychological torture further than the following: "Any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, or to obtain confessions (true or false) for propaganda or political purposes may be called torture. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments. A moral definition of torture proposes that the sin of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain" or furthermore, as defined by the UN itself: "any process to obtain mental and moral degradation without the use of violence, and often as quickly as practicable
Blackmail
Harm to friends or strangers, threatened, or carried out, and blamed on the victim
Being forced to witness atrocities, perhaps against family or persons with whom the victim identifies
Being forced to commit atrocities, perhaps against family, friends or allies
Forced witnessing of or participation in sexual activity
Being forced to watch acts of sexual abuse
Covert (non-contact) or other forced incest
Being Bullied
Shaming and public humiliation, being stripped or displayed naked, public condemnation
Shunning
Being dirty, self-fouled, urinated on, or covered with fecal matter
Headshaving (especially women)
Racial, sexual, religious or other verbal abuse against any characteristic of the victim
Being tricked into lying, or statements conflicting with past statements during interrogation.
Being forced to renounce or betray political, national, other strong affiliations or loyalties
Being coerced into denying one’s religion or morals, blasphemy, or religious degradation
Conditions of detention
Being subjected to nonstop interrogation for long periods
Shouting and taunting
Mock execution and horrific experiences
Starvation, cold and damp
Extended solitary confinement
Partial or total sensory deprivation
Continual or unpredictable noise
Alterations to room temperature
Cramping, confinement, ball and chain, shackling
Being held incommunicado
Being kept in confined spaces
Extended sleep deprivation
Being forced to sleep on hard surfaces
Exploitation of phobias, e.g. leaving arachnophobes in a room full of spiders
Forced labor, other coercion into excessive physical activity

When have we, the NSUN, codified this definition? (OOC: In other words, keep the RL stuff out of your IC stuff.)

Also, see the few bits I've bolded in your ficticious definition. Bullied? What's that? Shunning? Come now. That's just silly. Shouting and taunting? Prisoners can't be yelled at? That's just absurd. Extended solitary confinement? What's extended? A day? A week? And beind kept in a confined space and/or made to sleep on a hard surface? Well, that pretty much makes most holding cells I've ever seen a form of torture, too. (OOC: And yes, I've seen holding cells here in the US firsthand -- bloody drunktank. :p )

Again, I want to apologize for the misunderstanding I might have created; I certainly didn't want to put you in the same bag as the representative of Cluichstan, and I hope this individual could understand what I just wrote, but I doubt it. You displayed correct manners, and that is why you deserve an honest (and also polite!) answer.

Again, I want you to shut the hell up and take up any personal problems you have with me out of this debate. Your petty little issues don't belong here.

Again, Ambassador Levesque, you have my thanks. I would advise some kind of therapy to aid you in getting over Sheik bin Cluich.

Not a bad idea, Benji.

True, I was irritated by him at first, too, but came to see him as a valuable counterwieght and sounding board for this Assembly. I can't make, or even suggest, you like him, but he's a vital part of the NSUN, and I'd be sorry to see the arrogant, caustic jackass leave.

Thanks...I think...

All of you complaining about the lack of definition for psychological violence, shut up. You want to exploit it as a loophole? in favour of this resolution, and my "FOR" can be officially registered now.

Well, glad to see the Paradican representative has taken the diplomatic kid gloves off, as it were, but we have been complaining about the lack of a definition of "psychological torture" myself, not because we want to exploit any loopholes, but because we don't want any exploitation of loopholes used against us.

Please allow me a moment to explain. We've got no problem with the proposal not going into detail about physical torture. That's pretty easy to see -- what with there being visible stuff, like beatings and the like. But how does one measure the effects of psychological interrogation methods, which, by the very definition (dictionary definition, that is) of "psycholoigcal," aren't visible in nature. There's no bruising, no broken bones, etc.

Now, that said, since "psychological torture" isn't defined by this proposal, should it become a resolution, and we were to, say, ship a suspect to another nation for interrogation there, we might be held by the UN to be in violation should the other nation's interrogators...oh, I don't know, say, yell at the suspect? Make him sleep on a bed that's not so comfy?

We don't want to be in violation of UN law. And that is why we want to be clear on the definition of "psychological violence."

On the subject of my "therapy", perhaps you are right in advising restraint on my part. However, it has been my experience, in classes or teams, that such individuals, even though it might seem they are "a valuable counterweight and sounding board" for a group, often crush others who might think about participating, but do not because they are afraid of the consequences. Most of the time, theses persons are the most likely to contribute greatly to the discussion; believe me, I talk from experience.

(OOC: Yay. You were on a mock UN team or something. Again, keep your OOC stuff separate from the IC.)

I often noticed that by me destroying the bully, the nerds seemed to come out of their closets.

(OOC: Now that's just funny.)

I do not question the Sheick's intelligence, just his attitude, wich I think is detrimental to the greater exchange of ideas within the group.

Wah, wah, boohoo...

I am sure you will agree with me that we need more nerds to do their "coming out"!!!

Sounds to me like the representative from Yamaneko is gearing up for a Nerd Pride Parade.

I could add that there is even game-theoretical evidence on this subject, in n-person game theory...

*yawn*

But I will follow your recommendation in the future; I just thought I needed to explain why I was so rash towards the Sheick. A MENSA colleague of mine recently confessed to me that the level of intelligence had increased since I had ridden a group we were participating in from its bully...

Wow. I have no idea what this "MENSA" is of which you speak (OOC: because it's more bloody RL stuff), but you must be sooooo smart.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

First, can I just say to everyone experiencing the twin pulls of defending this proposal and belittling its opponents to drop the latter from their array; it does no one any good. Nonetheless, thanks to those genuinely defending the proposal.
Please allow me a moment to explain. We've got no problem with the proposal not going into detail about physical torture. That's pretty easy to see -- what with there being visible stuff, like beatings and the like. But how does one measure the effects of psychological interrogation methods, which, by the very definition (dictionary definition, that is) of "psycholoigcal," aren't visible in nature. There's no bruising, no broken bones, etc.

Now, that said, since "psychological torture" isn't defined by this proposal, should it become a resolution, and we were to, say, ship a suspect to another nation for interrogation there, we might be held by the UN to be in violation should the other nation's interrogators...oh, I don't know, say, yell at the suspect? Make him sleep on a bed that's not so comfy?

We don't want to be in violation of UN law. And that is why we want to be clear on the definition of psychological violence."
The problem is, this abstract conception of 'the UN' you're invoking doesn't really exist. What is the UN, but the assembly of its member nations? What voice does it have, except its resolutions? If this proposal set up a committee to adjudicate over cases of extraordinary rendition, I'd understand the concern. But we deliberately avoided that.

Member nations interpret UN law. On Cluichstani soil, your definition of 'psychological violence' is applicable; on anyone else's, you will be held to theirs. So that means that if the nation you render the suspect to is really the only one who could somehow exploit the definition: in which case, why would you bother effecting such a rendition? No other nation has any basis of legal complaint against you if they consider your beds torturously uncomfy, not by this proposal at any rate.

I'd expected the main opposition to this proposal to be from people who were concerned that the definition provided too much latitude. To suggest there are constricting requirements where there are none, or to argue that the right of members to reasonably interpret legislation should be abridged, strikes me as antithetical.

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

It pleases me greatly to declare that the New Cultural Revolution has authorised me to place its vote in favour of the resolution at hand.

Excellent work by our Quintessential friends.

Benedictions,

Time after time after time, we've heard certain members of this Assembly complain and complain and complain about the lack of specificity in this resolution's definition. Yet, in more than a month that the proposal was available for comment, they made not one single suggestion for how the definition should be improved. Now, we hesitate to pass judgment on the motives of others. Apparently some members consider themselves mind-readers. We don't. So we can only look at the situation and consider possibilities:

1. Those complaining have no idea what would be better than the existing language. If that's the case, we wonder how they consider themselves competent to pass judgment.

2. The complaints are specious, put forth by nations who really wouldn't support the resolution even if the definition were perfect. They like having the ability to get other nations to do their dirty work for them.

3. It's simply not possible to provide a more specific definition that would properly accommodate the many varied sentient species in the NSUN and the even more widely varied cultures in our nations.

We believe that the third possibility is, in fact, true. Surely, if something better could be done, those who have expended so much energy finding fault with the definition could have come up with some suggestion for something better. We believe that the resolution does the best job that can be done in our environment of prohibiting a slimy, scurrilous practice. It closes a gaping loophole in existing law. We stand firm in our support of this fine and much-needed legislation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

On behalf of the Balanced Scales region, and my nation as well, I am pleased to announce we have cast our votes in favor of this resolution. Extraordinary rendition is a practice that is dishonorable in the extreme, and needs to be stricken from the practice of civilized nations everywhere. We feel that this resolution does an admirable job of doing just that.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

This restricts our ability to defend our homeland. There is a time and place for torture, why, once when I was a lad, my brother took my favorite car. In order to find it I had to put him in a chicken wing and threaten him with a wedgie. Needless to say, he buckled and gave it up almost immediately!!

Torture as a means to an end, mainly the securement of intelligence data on subjects of ill repute, is certainly fine in our book.

This is too restrictive!

Oduibne, Grand Poo Ba
Kingdom of Oduibne

Torture's already illegal in the UN, a body you joined of your own free will, remember? If you can't be bothered to read the rules of the clubs you join, that's your own problem.

I also had a question to ask you: do you think there should be more discussion on the proposition at hand, or should we leave the matter as is (I mean rendition), and let jurisprudence more clearly define our attitude toward non-member states? I must admit I am not sure of my position on that, perhaps you can help me.

Waiting for your valuable input on this subject,

Yves Lévesque
Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Ambassador Levesque,

I think it's pretty much run its course. Those in favor know why, those against either know why or are ignoring the GLARING fact that torture is already forbidden for UN nations and can't be bothered to figure that out before speaking in the General Assembly, fouling the air with their uninformed nonsense.

Jurisprudence and the several nations' own judgement will sort this out.

Benji -- uh...I mean --

Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

Ambassador Levesque,

I think it's pretty much run its course. Those in favor know why, those against either know why or are ignoring the GLARING fact that torture is already forbidden for UN nations and can't be bothered to figure that out before speaking in the General Assembly, fouling the air with their uninformed nonsense.

Jurisprudence and the several nations' own judgement will sort this out.

Benji -- uh...I mean --

Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

Dear Ambassador Royce (or Benji, as you wish!),

You are so right! Some people just don't get it... But everyone has a capacity to learn (I guess!)... Maybe we are wasting some of our energies, but it it worth it; think of what would have happened if I had taken your first message to be insulting... but reading your other post showed me that you were indeed passionnate, but open to logic. I guess it is the manner in wich we should sort out our differences in the UN...

You are also right on jurisprudence; I just hope that some other people understand that...

Yves Lévesque
Nerdy Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

It is of my best wishes to say that due to a vote in Sicily, we shall be voting for with all 16 votes we have.

We are not going to preach one way or the other, as it would be redundant.

Dear Ambassador Royce (or Benji, as you wish!),

You are so right! Some people just don't get it... But everyone has a capacity to learn (I guess!)... Maybe we are wasting some of our energies, but it it worth it; think of what would have happened if I had taken your first message to be insulting... but reading your other post showed me that you were indeed passionnate, but open to logic. I guess it is the manner in wich we should sort out our differences in the UN...

You are also right on jurisprudence; I just hope that some other people understand that...

Yves Lévesque
Nerdy Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Dear Ambassador Royce (or Benji, as you wish!),

You are so right! Some people just don't get it... But everyone has a capacity to learn (I guess!)... Maybe we are wasting some of our energies, but it it worth it; think of what would have happened if I had taken your first message to be insulting... but reading your other post showed me that you were indeed passionnate, but open to logic. I guess it is the manner in wich we should sort out our differences in the UN...

You are also right on jurisprudence; I just hope that some other people understand that...

Yves Lévesque
Nerdy Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Dear Ambassador Royce (or Benji, as you wish!),

You are so right! Some people just don't get it... But everyone has a capacity to learn (I guess!)... Maybe we are wasting some of our energies, but it it worth it; think of what would have happened if I had taken your first message to be insulting... but reading your other post showed me that you were indeed passionnate, but open to logic. I guess it is the manner in wich we should sort out our differences in the UN...

You are also right on jurisprudence; I just hope that some other people understand that...

Yves Lévesque
Nerdy Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Dear Ambassador Royce (or Benji, as you wish!),

You are so right! Some people just don't get it... But everyone has a capacity to learn (I guess!)... Maybe we are wasting some of our energies, but it it worth it; think of what would have happened if I had taken your first message to be insulting... but reading your other post showed me that you were indeed passionnate, but open to logic. I guess it is the manner in wich we should sort out our differences in the UN...

You are also right on jurisprudence; I just hope that some other people understand that...

Yves Lévesque
Nerdy Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Dear Ambassador Royce (or Benji, as you wish!),

You are so right! Some people just don't get it... But everyone has a capacity to learn (I guess!)... Maybe we are wasting some of our energies, but it it worth it; think of what would have happened if I had taken your first message to be insulting... but reading your other post showed me that you were indeed passionnate, but open to logic. I guess it is the manner in wich we should sort out our differences in the UN...

You are also right on jurisprudence; I just hope that some other people understand that...

Yves Lévesque
Nerdy Ambassador of Yamaneko to the UN

Holy crap, the activity in here has dropped so much lately that we've got one hell of an echo in here now.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Holy crap, the activity in here has dropped so much lately that we've got one hell of an echo in here now.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

... My god you are right! What happened?

... My god you are right! What happened?

OOC: Most likely, it's Jolt.

We'd note our opposition to this proposal, as we fear it may endanger the relationships we have forged with regimes some may consider "unsavory," but which we deem crucial to our international coalition against terrorism.

The Federal Republic does not render terror suspects to jurisdictions where it believes they may be subject to torture, but we do in some cases transfer suspects to nations whose reputations may not exactly be pure, but to which we have no "probable cause" to believe they are engaging in torture. Simply put, we don't ask them. We respect the right of nations to remain silent on their interrogation methods, so as to prevent the enemy from training its fighters to resist such methods, and at the same time we recognize that such governments may have a greater cultural understanding as to the tactics to which enemy suspects are more likely to respond. Moreover, in some cases these nations may themselves have an interest in questioning our terror suspects.

We ourselves have no reason to suspect that these nations actually are subjecting people to torture, but unfortunately assessments of foreign regimes are not always a simple matter of government finding; many times we are subject to outside pressure, either from other allies or from our own people, who may disagree as to the nature of the governments we sometimes entrust with questioning enemy fighters under our jurisdiction. We would object to any mandate wherein our critics could actually accuse us of violating international law, which would only make it harder to convince them that we are not, in fact, engaged in any shady dealings in our prosecution of the war, and may increase the likelihood that we will be forced to bow to such pressure. If that should ever happen, and we are coerced into severing agreements on the interrogation of terror suspects with certain nations, they may then retaliate with, "Well, if you're gonna do that, we'll just not share intelligence on x and y. How's them apples?"

We find this mandate an all-too-simple solution to a very complicated problem. Holding all nations up to the same superior standard of morality is one thing, but refusing to recognize that in war, sometimes that morality must be compromised is quite another.

Nonetheless, we congratulate the Quodite delegation on the imminent passage of this resolution.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

My apologies if this has already been addressed-

While I do suppost the essence of this proposal, and have indeed voted for it, I noticed earlier a most valid point!

The terms of pyschological torture are not at all defined. Shouldn't we worry, then, that nations which vote against this proposal (or, indeed, take any stance on it at all) may assume it is 'open for interpretation'? If that is the case, then this act may end up being 'violated' in the eyes of its creator. Certainly, as it was already pointed out, things which may be mentally devistating to one person may have little or no effect on another.

The proposal has 'good intentions', as it were, but does not go into quiet enough detail, perhaps, to ensure that it is followed as much as those who vote for it might like?

Catherine Guldemeister,
Free Lands of Blijheid
Representative of Conclave

My apologies if this has already been addressed-

While I do suppost the essence of this proposal, and have indeed voted for it, I noticed earlier a most valid point!

The terms of pyschological torture are not at all defined. Shouldn't we worry, then, that nations which vote against this proposal (or, indeed, take any stance on it at all) may assume it is 'open for interpretation'? If that is the case, then this act may end up being 'violated' in the eyes of its creator. Certainly, as it was already pointed out, things which may be mentally devistating to one person may have little or no effect on another.

The proposal has 'good intentions', as it were, but does not go into quiet enough detail, perhaps, to ensure that it is followed as much as those who vote for it might like?

Catherine Guldemeister,
Free Lands of Blijheid
Representative of Conclave

We'd like to welcome our new colleague to the Assembly. The point has indeed been addressed, many times, in this forum and in off-site forums. In fact, the author repeatedly asked for suggestions on how the definition could be made more specific. None were forthcoming.

We think the key to why this was so, and why the definition in the resolution is the best practicable one, lies in a comment that Representative Guldemeister just made: "things which may be mentally devistating to one person may have little or no effect on another." There are almost 30,000 nations in the NSUN. Their citizens and nationals represent a number of sentient species, with widely varying psychological make-ups and cultures. We believe that writing a more specific definition which would take into proper consideration the situations of all of them is simply not practical.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The Federal Republic does not render terror suspects to jurisdictions where it believes they may be subject to torture, but we do in some cases transfer suspects to nations whose reputations may not exactly be pure, but to whom we have no "probable cause" to believe they are engaging in torture. Simply put, we don't ask them. ... We ourselves have no reason to suspect that these nations actually are subjecting people to torture... We find this mandate an all-too-simple solution to a very complicated problem. Holding all nations up to the same superior standard of morality is one thing, but refusing to recognize that in war, sometimes that morality must be compromised is quite another.

Ah, Cmdr. Chiang, good of you to raise the "I know nuthingz" defense. You'll note, however, that the resolution states...if there is probable cause to believe they would be subject to torture.Were it to say, '...if a nation has probable cause...', you would be correct in walking right through that loophole. Unfortunately for you to continue your extraordinary rendition activities, to whatever extent you engage in such behavior, this entire body would have to become the proverbial blind, deaf and mute monkey.

As for the simplicity of this mandate, sometimes simple is best.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

--snip--
Our thanks for your graciousness, and for supplying, as we see it, one of the few cogent arguments against our proposal. Nonetheless, there two points on which I must disagree:

Firstly, I don't accept that this about a 'superior standard of morality'. My Quodite peers' table manners, let alone any more substantial actions, leave me little faith in our having any superior moral values to anyone else, and I don't accept this such a view is a prerequisite to support of this proposal (the language of some of its supporters notwithstanding). Nevermind morality, this is about rules. There are rules, that torture is not to be conducted. Trying to circumvent those rules through extraordinary rendition is still a breaking of those rules, and should be codified as such.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that it is a given that such rules can be put aside in times of war, as you seem to suggest. It is times of war, civil unrest or international stability that necessitate such rules: where there's perfect fluffy tweeting-birds order, why would we have any need for them anyway? War has generally accepted rules, on the treatment of prisoners, of civilians, the use of particular weapons, political and legal proceedings, and so on: the prohibition of torture is another, and by extension, extraordinary rendition steps beyond acceptable practice. In any case, to suggest there might be a need for torture is not to justify its use (I have a need for housing, but that doesn't mean the government should supply it free to me; there are occasions where war crimes might prove tactically advantageous, but they should still remain war crimes).

I would not expect you to come to agreement with us on these points, and if our proposal does indeed impede your foreign relations, I can only apologise; nonetheless, we stand by the view that extraordinary rendition contravenes not only the standard practices of international law, but also of international rights.

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

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST the resolution "Extraordinary Rendition" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. The vote on the Gatesville forum poll was actually quite close, but the nays have it.

Hellar Gray

FOR [ 3 ] [50.00%]
AGAINST [ 3 ] [50.00%]
Total Votes: 6
Interesting breed of mathematics you practice there in Gatesville, clearly.

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

FOR [ 3 ] [50.00%]
AGAINST [ 3 ] [50.00%]
Total Votes: 6
Interesting breed of mathematics you practice there in Gatesville, clearly.

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

The voting system is rather more complex than can be explained by simple addition. The Delegate also reviews opinions sent to her by telegram from those residents of Gatesville that do not frequent the forum, and in the case of an unclear vote, may choose to use her own vote as a swing vote.

Hellar Gray

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg (s11.invisionfree.com/antarctic_oasis)
Antarctic Oasis Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"[Panting] We made it! Right at the last minute! What do we win? ... Nothing? Oh, very well. The ambassador for our region's delegate nation, Kivistan UN Bordello (www.nationstates.net/kivistan_un_bordello), has voted AGAINST. Why? Well, we're not entirely sure, and he would have come here to tell you himself, only he has been rendered to Karmicaria for purposes of being tortured. Not for doing anything wrong or holding back any information, mind you; he just seems to enjoy it. However, we did find this note (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=327&view=findpost&p=6398944) from his office before he was dragged off kicking and screaming (he enjoys that, too). At any rate, the regional poll ran 1-3-3, so we can say with confidence that the delegate's decision is fairly representative of the views of the region as a whole. Not that we'd give a shit, even if it wasn't.VICTORY IS MINE!!

We'd note our opposition to this proposal, as we fear it may endanger the relationships we have forged with regimes some may consider "unsavory," but which we deem crucial to our international coalition against terrorism.

The Federal Republic does not render terror suspects to jurisdictions where it believes they may be subject to torture, but we do in some cases transfer suspects to nations whose reputations may not exactly be pure, but to which we have no "probable cause" to believe they are engaging in torture. Simply put, we don't ask them. We respect the right of nations to remain silent on their interrogation methods, so as to prevent the enemy from training its fighters to resist such methods, and at the same time we recognize that such governments may have a greater cultural understanding as to the tactics to which enemy suspects are more likely to respond. Moreover, in some cases these nations may themselves have an interest in questioning our terror suspects.

We ourselves have no reason to suspect that these nations actually are subjecting people to torture, but unfortunately assessments of foreign regimes are not always a simple matter of government finding; many times we are subject to outside pressure, either from other allies or from our own people, who may disagree as to the nature of the governments we sometimes entrust with questioning enemy fighters under our jurisdiction. We would object to any mandate wherein our critics could actually accuse us of violating international law, which would only make it harder to convince them that we are not, in fact, engaged in any shady dealings in our prosecution of the war, and may increase the likelihood that we will be forced to bow to such pressure. If that should ever happen, and we are coerced into severing agreements on the interrogation of terror suspects with certain nations, they may then retaliate with, "Well, if you're gonna do that, we'll just not share intelligence on x and y. How's them apples?"

We find this mandate an all-too-simple solution to a very complicated problem. Holding all nations up to the same superior standard of morality is one thing, but refusing to recognize that in war, sometimes that morality must be compromised is quite another.

Nonetheless, we congratulate the Quodite delegation on the imminent passage of this resolution.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

We realize we have no hope of changing the vote of the honorable representative, but we thought we'd just respond anyway.

We're not at all surprised that the nation which created the Creative Solutions Agency would engage in the practice of "diplomatic fiction" to try to squeeze through a loophole here. In other words: "we're just not going to ask them, so we can pretend we don't know". Unfortunately for that creative approach, it won't wash. Those charged with enforcing this legislation, we expect, will apply the principle of the "reasonable and prudent person": would a reasonable and prudent nation have probable cause to believe that torture would be used? If so, the sending nation would be held responsible for violation of this resolution.

We also must disagree that this resolution sets a "superior standard of morality". We believe that the standard is quite a low one. The resolution merely prohibits nations from getting others to do their dirty work for them so they can skate out from under responsibility.

We're also amused at the thought that our friends from Omigodtheykilledkenny are concerned that they would have to bow to pressure from their critics. We've never seen them come even close to bowing yet. Guess there's a first time for everything. ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We're not at all surprised that the nation which created the Creative Solutions Agency would engage in the practice of "diplomatic fiction" to try to squeeze through a loophole here. In other words: "we're just not going to ask them, so we can pretend we don't know". Unfortunately for that creative approach, it won't wash. Those charged with enforcing this legislation, we expect, will apply the principle of the "reasonable and prudent person": would a reasonable and prudent nation have probable cause to believe that torture would be used? If so, the sending nation would be held responsible for violation of this resolution.Hmm, that's interesting; we always assumed those charged with interpreting and enforcing the terms of UN conventions were the member states. Why else would there be so much contention over the definition of torture in this debate, and why else would the Quodites repeatedly respond (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12201726&postcount=117) by telling them interpreting the language is their own responsibility? Why else would we even have a Creative Solutions Agency?

Our lack of knowledge on use of turture in foreign jurisdictions is not a matter "diplomatic fiction"; it's a matter of "need to know." We do not render suspects abroad for purposes of torture, but because we acknowledge that foreign nations may have a greater understanding of the suspects' culture, and thus a greater understanding as to the interrogation methods they would more likely respond to. Some of these nations may not have the most stellar of international reputations, and thus be more susceptible to accusations of torture, but our decision to render suspects to their care should be taken as a signal that we trust them enough not to use torture. So much so that we don't even need to ask. But if we did have knowledge of torture being used in any nation, you can bet your sweet ass we would not be rendering any enemy suspects to them.

We voted against because other nations may not agree with our government's assessment of our partner nations, and could accuse them of using torture, and by extension, accuse us of violating international law. Adding another kink to the knot which presently binds our hands will only decrease our chances of effectively prosecuting a war against dangerous lunatics, and ensuring the safety of our people.

[EDIT: It passed. Congrats Quod.]

Last UN Decision: The resolution Extraordinary Rendition was passed 8,306 votes to 4,272, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Hmm, that's interesting; we always assumed those charged with interpreting and enforcing the terms of UN conventions were the member states. Why else would there be so much contention over the definition of torture in this debate, and why else would the Quodites repeatedly respond (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12201726&postcount=117) by telling them interpreting the language is their own responsibility? Why else would we even have a Creative Solutions Agency?


The honorable representative overlooks the fact that, in any situation of compliance with law, there are two parties who must interpret it: those who must obey the law and those who must enforce it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambasador-at-Large

Thank you to everyone who assisted with this proposal: in particular, Ausserland, Yelda, Witchcliff, Ithania, and others who commented on the Reclamation forum.

i comply

The honorable representative overlooks the fact that, in any situation of compliance with law, there are two parties who must interpret it: those who must obey the law and those who must enforce it.Right, and since there is no UN Supreme Court capable of overriding our interpretation of the law, it's pretty much our interpretation that stands, isn't it?

i comply

Is it my imagination, or is that pretty much the only thing this guy's ever said?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Congrats.

Is it my imagination, or is that pretty much the only thing this guy's ever said?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Yep. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=665075)