NationStates Jolt Archive

Prevention of Torture

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust (http://www.nationstates.net/quintessence_of_dust)

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising the universal right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,

Deeming torture to constitute such treatment,

Consequently moving quickly to enact strong prohibitions on torture within international law,

Declares:

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
- Physical, sexual, or psychological abuse,
- Forced maintenance of physically uncomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,
- Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation,
- Subjection to intrusive noise, such as noise that is continuous or excessively loud,
- Sleep deprivation,
- Deprivation of adequate food and drink,
- Denial of necessary medical care,
- Denial of right to religious observance,
- Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

3. Torture is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission or threats thereof, is to be designated a heinous crime under national and international law.

4. No member nation may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.

5. Member nations shall prohibit torture and attempts to commit torture, and shall treat such acts as criminal offences, including legal penalties reflecting the severity of such crimes.

6. Member nations shall take effective action to prevent acts of torture within their jurisdiction.

7. Member nations may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture.

8. An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused; such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty. Coercion may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the prosecution of acts of torture committed by subordinates following orders.

9. The training of military and law enforcement personnel, those responsible for those held in detention, and any other persons having responsibility for persons facing interrogation, criminal investigation or detention shall include instruction on the obligation not to perform torture.

10. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation’s jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof.

11. If there is an accusation or probable cause exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed, the competent authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case, and to initiate the corresponding criminal process.

12. Victims of torture have the right to suitable compensation, including the coverage of all medical expenses incurred as a result of torture.

13. Evidence obtained by torture shall be inadmissible in legal proceedings, except as evidence against persons accused of having obtained it by torture.
So, this is our Take 2 at a proposal for the WA. Obviously, we'd like all the comments possible on improving the definition, clarification of awkwardly worded clauses, and removal of any ambiguity or confusion. And maybe coming up with a better title.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Edited in newer version, 28/04/08.

Members shall ensure prohibit torture and

grammar.

An order to commit torture is an illeg

id go with 'any' instead of 'an' but that's just me, seems to flow better.

clause one should be cleared up perhaps.... the longest sentance in UN/WA history....... i also see it deeming torture illegal only if its for a purpose, so pointless torture is still not outlawed.

Recognising the universal right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,

Deeming torture to constitute such treatment,

why not just make this the right to freedom from cruel, inuman (hate that word) or degrading treatment? funnily enough, like my WAWCT proposal when you criticized me for putting right to self defesne in the preamble, your adding rights in this one.

15. This Resolution shall be adopted in accordance with each member’s constitutional processes.

dont know what this means. either it means that they'll endorse and or vote for things with their own constitutional processess (which they'd do anyway), or its almost as if your giving them the option to "adopt" or not adopt this would be resolution. either way it seems an entirely unnecessary clause.

{ooc for you:

- Sleep deprivation

oh you liberal. the geneva convention actually guarantees you the right to a 'well-lit room' for precisely this purpose.

grammar.
Not sure I agree. I assume you mean there should be a comma after 'and'? But 'attempts to commit' follows 'prohibit', so I don't see why it's incorrect.
id go with 'any' instead of 'an' but that's just me, seems to flow better.
Hmm, not sure it makes much difference.

I'll wait for any other advice before making changes on those first 2 points: if there's a consensus you're right, I'll make the changes.
clause one should be cleared up perhaps.... the longest sentance in UN/WA history....... i also see it deeming torture illegal only if its for a purpose, so pointless torture is still not outlawed.
In what way is it unclear? In what way does its length prohibit understanding? I entirely agree that it is quite long, but torture seems worth defining properly.

On the subject of torture 'for a purpose', you're correct, but what circumstances would then be left untreated by the definition? Perhaps I should add in 'humiliation', but otherwise I don't see any conditions liable to abuse remaining.
why not just make this the right to freedom from cruel, inuman sic (hate that word) or degrading treatment? funnily enough, like my WAWCT proposal when you criticized me for putting right to self defesne in the preamble, your adding rights in this one.
Yes, and that was because I disagreed with the right to self-defence, whereas I agree with the right to freedom from such treatment. The reason for not making this a more expansive proposal is character count: this is about 30 characters within the limit at the last count, and so there simply isn't room. I would definitely be open to other legislation on matter such as legal punishment and treatment of prisoners, but I can't fit it all into this.
dont know what this means. either it means that they'll endorse and or vote for things with their own constitutional processess (which they'd do anyway), or its almost as if your giving them the option to "adopt" or not adopt this would be resolution. either way it seems an entirely unnecessary clause.
It's just a standard clause to reflect the fact that some nations will implemet this on a devolved level: for example, municipalities might be responsible for law enforcement rather than the national government. If it causes much flak it can be removed, but it certainly doesn't give them the 'option' of compliance, because their constitutional processes are still subject to international law, as per Rights and Duties.

-- Samantha Benson

Sure, let's throw away the only reliable way to get information out of terrorist and their like.

Not sure I agree. I assume you mean there should be a comma after 'and'? But 'attempts to commit' follows 'prohibit', so I don't see why it's incorrect.He's talking about this:

Members shall ensure prohibit torture andWhat's with the title?

heh, yeah, it's quite an effective method, because no one ever lies... I'd vote for this, just a little clean-up.

Quotes from the Dominion Reporter:
4. Torture is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission, is to be designated a crime under national and international law.the problem with the WA right now is that we do not have an international court to enforce our laws. perhaps a suggestion to have court proceedings with an international court once it exists or a court sanctioned by concerned WA members. we need to give teeth to this resolution, at least a trial would start the process.
6. ... shall treat such acts as criminal offences (offenses).. torture should be considered as a "grave" criminal offense.

Logan Iliam
Associate Justice of the Realm


intelligence communities wouldn't like this one. i know we don't like it!

Dir. Igliakumiso Martigalom
Avatarian Guard, Human Intelligence Division

2. Such acts include:
- Phyical, sexual abuse, or psychological abuse,
- Forced maintenance of physically discomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,
- Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation,
- Subjection to intrusive noise, such as noise that is continuous or excessively loud,
- Sleep deprivation,
- Deprivation of adequate food and drink.

3. The above does not prevent members employing wider definitions for their own purposes.

could you maybe change no. 2 to read "Such acts include, but are not restricted to:"

i think that then deems No.3 superfluous and it reads better.

*\The Mohandasian delegate says somewhat quietly, hurriedly and obviously nervously. Then sits back down and burys his head in his cuppa tea mumbling something about "first time speaking here.... get better....slurp"

oh you liberal?

does it matter if he/she is liberal or not? I am as well and thats just rude. It's better than being a fascist like you

Another proposal TMZ will not support

I'm not sure, but couldn't hanging and electrocution be considered torture by section one(any by extension a few other non-standard execution methods)? It seems to ban anything that causes severe discomfort or worse, as a "personal punishment". The specific people mentioned in this seem a bit too specific, and needlessly complicated. "where committed by or at their behest or inducement, or with the approval or assistance, of a government official, or a person acting in such capacity, or a person acting at their instigation, or a military agent or private military contractor." could easily be removed, since it's redundant to say "It's banned even if you're told to do it,". Especially since you don't make it illegal for the commands to be given... yet... let me read on.

If section two said "Such acts include but are not limited to:" then section three is no longer needed.

Section four mentions crimes against humanity, but I don't think we have a working definition of that yet. Not that we necessarily need one, this can establish precedent, but the section will accomplish the same thing if you remove "is designated a crime against humanity".

Section six as already mentioned should probably read "shall prohibit" instead of "shall ensure prohibit"(or at best "shall ensure prohibition").

Section nine makes no provision for the illegality of refusing the order. If the commanding officer gives the illegal command, the soldier can still be punished for not carrying it out, and will definitely be punished for carrying it out. Beyond that the commanding officer has no duty to not issue that command.

A new section(or two possibly) tucked in somewhere around section nine that reads:

Issuing orders to commit torture shall constitute a criminal offense, and disobeying those orders shall carry no penalties in member states.

Might be good. Outside of that(and even considering my few comments) this is a solid piece of legislation. Hope to see it go through Ms. Benson.

I really like this, it's well-written and looks quite effective. I'd like to second the suggestion of Mohandasia regarding section 2. Also, in section 11, perhaps

"11. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation's jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof."

is preferable.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA

Thanks for all the comments. I'm not going to get into an ideological debate, yet; I'd rather make the proposal as good as possible, or having failed to do so abandon it, than get bogged down in ethics from the start.

I've made some grammatical changes, including on the advice of the ambassador from Decapod Ten, which I now understand; sorry about that. Also, a couple of extra provisions have been added to Clause 2, and a couple of extraneous clauses removed.
What's with the title?
Hmm, I just don't like it very much. I guess it's alright, but if anyone has any snappier suggestions, they would be eagerly heeded.
the problem with the WA right now is that we do not have an international court to enforce our laws. perhaps a suggestion to have court proceedings with an international court once it exists or a court sanctioned by concerned WA members. we need to give teeth to this resolution, at least a trial would start the process.
...
torture should be considered as a "grave" criminal offense.
Thank you; both comments are sensible. On the second one, I have added 'heinous' to Clause 3, so as to clarify the point you're making. (The spelling of 'offence' is deliberate; it's like that in Quintessential English.)

On the first point, I agree that an international tribunal on crimes against humanity would be a good idea. However, I don't want to set it up in *this* proposal; I was simply including the language such that any future international law proposals would be sure to regard torture as an important consideration.
could you maybe change no. 2 to read "Such acts include, but are not restricted to:"

i think that then deems No.3 superfluous and it reads better.
Thank you very much. I've made your change, and nixed Clause 3.
Also, in section 11, perhaps

"11. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation's jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof."

is preferable.
I've used 'member' throughout the document, so I want to be consistent. To be honest, that was a character count consideration; if I have room, I'll change them all to 'member nation'.

-- Samantha Benson

I'm not sure, but couldn't hanging and electrocution be considered torture by section one(any by extension a few other non-standard execution methods)? It seems to ban anything that causes severe discomfort or worse, as a "personal punishment".
The inclusion of 'personal' is meant to differentiate such punishment from legal punishment. So this is someone being punished by a prison guard for not saluting the flag (for example) rather than being punished by order of a court. I don't want to get into corporal or capital punishment in this proposal. If you think the language on that front needs clarifying, then I'll consider adding in a qualifier.
The specific people mentioned in this seem a bit too specific, and needlessly complicated.
It's to clarify that this isn't a civil issue. Domestic abuse, for example, is something that however serious and worthy of international attention is not to be tangled with issues of torture.
Section four mentions crimes against humanity, but I don't think we have a working definition of that yet. Not that we necessarily need one, this can establish precedent, but the section will accomplish the same thing if you remove "is designated a crime against humanity".
But, I do want to establish a precedent, in case any future proposals should deal with crimes against humanity; it'll prevent torture being omitted from consideration.

If the WA never tackles the issue, then yes, the language will be superfluous, but equally, that would be the least of our problems!
Section nine makes no provision for the illegality of refusing the order. If the commanding officer gives the illegal command, the soldier can still be punished for not carrying it out, and will definitely be punished for carrying it out. Beyond that the commanding officer has no duty to not issue that command.
Yes, this could probably do with some clarifying. However, I question the realism of your statement: if the illegal order is given in the first place, passing a law against punishing the disobedient is unlikely to accomplish much. Furthermore, this is also something I anticipated further international law dealing with.

Nonetheless, I've changed it a bit, incorporating your suggestion:
8. An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused; such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty.

-- Samantha Benson

The inclusion of 'personal' is meant to differentiate such punishment from legal punishment. So this is someone being punished by a prison guard for not saluting the flag (for example) rather than being punished by order of a court.
Ah, so that was the intended meaning? It's the way in which the government of St Edmund would have interpreted that term, anyway, but I wasn't sure whether you actually meant "personal" in that sense or in the sense of "individual"... in which case you would have left the use of torture for collective punishment apparently legal.

Collective punishment is obviously something I'd like to see prohibited, but again it falls outside the remit of this proposal. I'm not concerned Clause 1 would create a legal loophole to permit torture as collective punishment.

-- Samantha Benson

I like it in its current form. Seems to cover all the options(and my comments were all adressed). That's all I gots to say sadly.

Sure, let's throw away the only reliable way to get information out of terrorist and their like.

Agreed. May the strong survive! It might be considered a barbaric means, but less costly and far more effective than guesswork.

Others with less of a stomach for necessary action would argue that these terrorists and the like have rights that should protect them from the only real means of defense against them. We in the Dominion of Samilyn wholeheartedly disagree. These terrorists forfeit those rights when they seek to destroy the lives of the law abiding citizens about them.

It is the stance of the Dominion of Samilyn that torture is often a vital tool with which to protect our people, and we will not happily support any resolution that would prohibit such.

-Ambassador Anu Durga

Agreed. May the strong survive! It might be considered a barbaric means, but less costly and far more effective than guesswork.

Others with less of a stomach for necessary action would argue that these terrorists and the like have rights that should protect them from the only real means of defense against them. We in the Dominion of Samilyn wholeheartedly disagree. These terrorists forfeit those rights when they seek to destroy the lives of the law abiding citizens about them.

It is the stance of the Dominion of Samilyn that torture is often a vital tool with which to protect our people, and we will not happily support any resolution that would prohibit such.

-Ambassador Anu Durga

The People's Republic of Lipardi stands with Ambassador Anu Durga on her nation's stance on this issue.

Torture has often been sponsored by governments for many years. The organizations, and groups that this resolution will protect inflict torture themselves for the same reasons as those acting in an official capacity.


2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
- Forced maintenance of physically uncomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,
- Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation,
- Subjection to intrusive noise, such as noise that is continuous or excessively loud,
- Sleep deprivation,
- Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

The items listed are all necessaries to gain information on enemies of many governments, and would effectively diminish intelligence agencies around the world. This resolution would threaten national security, therefore, the People's Republic of Lipardi cannot support this.

- Ambassador Braden Burkart

[QUOTE]1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally hurting or inflicting severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed by or at their behest or inducement, or with the approval or assistance, of a government official, or a person acting in such capacity, or a person acting at their instigation, or a military agent or private military contractor.Would hanging be consider torture.. as we have seen criminals swing for near twenty hours before they are dead.
2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
- Physical, sexual abuse, or psychological abuse,
- Forced maintenance of physically uncomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,
- Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation,
- Subjection to intrusive noise, such as noise that is continuous or excessively loud,
- Sleep deprivation,
- Deprivation of adequate food and drink,
- Denial of necessary medical care,
- Denial of right to religious observance,
- Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.
Criminals and prisoners get treated in a manner suitable of their conduct. They work when required to and perform to the rules; then they are treated well. They fail to work they get nothing since they earn nothing and they refuse to follow rules they are removed from socal contact with others who are following the rules. We don't believe in letting a rotten apple spoil the hole bunch..

3. Torture is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission, is to be designated a heinous crime under national and international law.And what of the eye for and eye rule, if a man tortures and rapes a child then does that man not deserve to feel his own pain.

4. No member may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.We know of no nation that hangs or tortures a person for chicken theft so any nation finds a citizen of their nation here that has stolen chickens contact our Minister of Prisons to arrange their return to your nation to stand trail for chicken theft.

5. Members shall prohibit torture and attempts to commit torture, and shall treat such acts as criminal offences, including legal penalties reflecting the severity of such crimes.Assault on another preson here is a crime and we do deal with those who assult others.... call it what ever you want when you assault another person you will do the time here.

6. Members shall take effective action to prevent acts of torture within their jurisdiction.Again we have no problem dealing with crimes in our own borders but find many nations lacking in dealing with it withing their borders many are not members of this body so any resolutions passed have no effect on them.

7. Members may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture.If this is an effort to end war then with a majority of nations outside the WA then we feel it is a bad idea to ban war...

8. An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused; such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty.Since it is not real clear what torture is even under the definition we think this is bad. I order soldiers into an enemy camp to kill them and destory the supplies in that camp. Some may see this as torture when some enemy end up wonded and unattended and in pain for hours while we deal with active enemey... thus are we to stop the battle to tend enemy wounded trying up our own medical staff and fighters for such.

9. The training of military and law enforcement personnel, those responsible for those held in detention, and any other persons having responsibility for persons facing interrogation, criminal investigation or detention shall include instruction on the obligation not to perform torture.We have no police so to say as we have the Royal Guard who watch out borders keeping our enemy out and the Royal Watch keeping order inside our borders. They both work side by side and are trained in the same manner and levels at every skill needed to defend nation and citizens.

10. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member’s jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof.We have a legal process and to say it is not impartial when it comes to acting to put away criminals is a false impression of them. Come here obay the laws and you will not have a problem with them; break those laws and get found guilty and see our prison or find out how strong the ropes made here are.

11. If there is an accusation or probable cause exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed, the competent authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case, and to initiate the corresponding criminal process.Now you insult or legal system again as you did in item 10... come visit us and break a law..

12. Victims of torture have the right to suitable compensation, including the coverage of all medical expenses incurred as a result of torture.What about burial costs?

13. Evidence obtained by torture shall be inadmissible in legal proceedings, except as evidence against persons accused of having obtained it by torture.Evidence obtained in any manner here is just that evidence and will be used as it applies in a trail.. Information obtained to stop terrorists will be used to do just that stop terrorists, and is not going to be considered 'evidence of terrorism' but 'prevention of terrorism'... two totaly different words in saving lives. Evidence is gathered after lives are lost Prevention is done well before those lives are lost... we prefer Prevention to finding Evidence...

Collective punishment is obviously something I'd like to see prohibited, but again it falls outside the remit of this proposal. I'm not concerned Clause 1 would create a legal loophole to permit torture as collective punishment.

-- Samantha Benson
Okay.
Do you think that maybe 'arbitrary' might work as well as, or better than, 'personal'?

Quintessence of Dust, I'd be inclined to make nations implement very tough penalties for torture. In my country, for example, extreme torture is tagged by capital punishment, alongside rape and murder.

I will not now, nor will I ever, and nor will this Office until my body is cold in the ground, set mandatory minimum sentences for breaches of WA law by individuals, of the form you're suggesting. It does require 'legal penalties reflecting the severity' of torture, and I don't see that any more is required.

A small grammatical change has been made to the first clause. Some extra language has been inserted into the second clause; please let me know if you think it will be excessively problematic.

-- Samantha Benson

[QUOTE=Quintessence of Dust;13634114]

Would hanging be consider torture.. as we have seen criminals swing for near twenty hours before they are dead

Not if they've been sentenced by a court.

Criminals and prisoners get treated in a manner suitable of their conduct. They work when required to and perform to the rules; then they are treated well. They fail to work they get nothing since they earn nothing and they refuse to follow rules they are removed from socal contact with others who are following the rules. We don't believe in letting a rotten apple spoil the hole bunch..

I don't believe that clause forbids you from making prisoners work...

And what of the eye for and eye rule, if a man tortures and rapes a child then does that man not deserve to feel his own pain.

Your courts can still setence them to jail, the death penalty, corporal punishment, etc. as they see fit.

We know of no nation that hangs or tortures a person for chicken theft so any nation finds a citizen of their nation here that has stolen chickens contact our Minister of Prisons to arrange their return to your nation to stand trail for chicken theft.

There probably are some. You're not allowed to deport chicken thieves to those nations anymore. :rolleyes:

Assault on another preson here is a crime and we do deal with those who assult others.... call it what ever you want when you assault another person you will do the time here.

Irrelevant to the resolution.

Again we have no problem dealing with crimes in our own borders but find many nations lacking in dealing with it withing their borders many are not members of this body so any resolutions passed have no effect on them.

No WA resolution can prohibit non-WA states from doing anything.

If this is an effort to end war then with a majority of nations outside the WA then we feel it is a bad idea to ban war...

That clause bans using war as a justification for torture, not war itself.

Since it is not real clear what torture is even under the definition we think this is bad. I order soldiers into an enemy camp to kill them and destory the supplies in that camp. Some may see this as torture when some enemy end up wonded and unattended and in pain for hours while we deal with active enemey... thus are we to stop the battle to tend enemy wounded trying up our own medical staff and fighters for such.

There's a clear definition of torture at the top of the resolution. Attacking the supply route of an enemy army does not fit under that definition.

We have no police so to say as we have the Royal Guard who watch out borders keeping our enemy out and the Royal Watch keeping order inside our borders. They both work side by side and are trained in the same manner and levels at every skill needed to defend nation and citizens.

Then they are considered "law enforcement"...

We have a legal process and to say it is not impartial when it comes to acting to put away criminals is a false impression of them. Come here obay the laws and you will not have a problem with them; break those laws and get found guilty and see our prison or find out how strong the ropes made here are.

If your courts presume guilty until proven innocent they are not impartial and therefore would not qualify are impartial investigators,

Now you insult or legal system again as you did in item 10... come visit us and break a law..

Ah, yes, a WA resolution written specifically to insult your courts. :rolleyes: This clause requires investigation of accusations of evidence of torture, which would be banned under this resolution... if your legal system already does, that's fine.

What about burial costs?

Most nations that legalize torture do not worry about burial costs - they just stick them in holes. That would, however, probably be covered in 'suitable compensation.'

Evidence obtained in any manner here is just that evidence and will be used as it applies in a trail.. Information obtained to stop terrorists will be used to do just that stop terrorists, and is not going to be considered 'evidence of terrorism' but 'prevention of terrorism'... two totaly different words in saving lives. Evidence is gathered after lives are lost Prevention is done well before those lives are lost... we prefer Prevention to finding Evidence...

If torture is made illegal but evidence from it is legal to use a nation could, in effect, give a torture program a slap on the wrist while maintaining their programs. Further, risking harm to innocent people to prevent the risk of harm to innocent people seems contradictory to this WA ambassador


Comments in red.

OOC:

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally hurting or inflicting severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed by or at the behest or inducement, or with the approval or assistance, of a government official, or a person acting in such capacity, or a person acting at their instigation, or a military agent or private military contractor.Run-on sentence. Can it be split up somehow?

2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
- Physical, sexual abuse, or psychological abuse,Wouldn't "physical, sexual or psychological abuse" work just as well?

- Forced maintenance of physically uncomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,What about binding their hands or legs?

4. No member may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.I admit I'm not very well-versed on non-refoulement principles, but what if the prisoner wants to return to his homeland?

6. Members shall take effective action to prevent acts of torture within their respective jurisdictions.IC remarks following:

Let me note for the record that most of this document meets with my government's favor. We do, however, have several concerns regarding this language:

- Denial of right to religious observance,And if such "religious observance" includes self-inflicted harm like wearing cilice belts or clothing, flogging or cutting oneself? Unreasonable requests, such as singing or wailing or other activities that would disturb other detainees or interfere with normal daily activities, like meals, yard time, cell checks, etc.? We don't mind if prisoners want to make elaborate headdresses or costumes for special religious observances; we do mind if it hinders guards from effectively managing the prison population. And you can understand if we won't give them lighted candles for special prayer appointments.

In short, we are fine with requiring nations to respect prisoners' religious obligations as a matter of international law, but we fear that defining such as "torture," and hence a "crime against humanity," is a deal-breaker for us.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
National Security Adviser

Run-on sentence. Can it be split up somehow?

Wouldn't "physical, sexual or psychological abuse" work just as well?


I agree on both of these two points. Is this still in spirit with the original draft?

1. DEFINES torture as any intentional act causing severe discomfort or suffering on a person with the approval or assistance of any government for the following purposes intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or extracting information.

i agree with mikivity and omigodtheykilledkenny that the word abuse needs droppng, however i disagree with both about shortening or rewriting the definition. It needs to be this detailed so as to ensure no loopholes and needs to be clear that torturing someone else to get information out of a 2nd person is an important distinction.

other than that the people of mohandasia congratulate Quintessence of Dust on a wonderfully written and thoughtful resolution. we will be voting for it.

if this works could we go visit ny and try it in the real un? ;)

if this works could we go visit ny and try it in the real un? ;)

Considering what happened the last time NS and the UN contacted each other (http://www.maxbarry.com/2008/04/02/news.html) I don't think that's such a good idea.

Would hanging be consider torture.. as we have seen criminals swing for near twenty hours before they are dead.Clearly you're doing it wrong.


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

i agree with mikivity and omigodtheykilledkenny that the word abuse needs droppng, however i disagree with both about shortening or rewriting the definition. It needs to be this detailed so as to ensure no loopholes and needs to be clear that torturing someone else to get information out of a 2nd person is an important distinction.


Just to be clear, my government will support the definition if it is short or long. We feel nations looking for loopholes will invent them despite our best efforts, so there needs to be a compromise. The question is just how detailed should we get. :)

Considering what happened the last time NS and the UN contacted each other (http://www.maxbarry.com/2008/04/02/news.html) I don't think that's such a good idea.

Those UN guys just don't know what good Legislation is.

US WA pwns RL UN

In recent deliberations with my nation's Executive Council, I have brought the Council's attention to this proposal, of which they voiced much interest and support.

A couple of the Chairmen on the Council did, however, express a bit of concern regarding Operative Clause #8:

8. An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused; such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty.

Implicitly, Clause #8 seems to require the courts to dismiss claims of coercion as legally irrelevant when trying cases involving alleged acts of torture. With this understanding, these Chairmen expressed the fear that the clause fails to appreciate the potentially extreme levels of physical and psychological distress individuals may suffer when coerced by agents of their government into commiting an act of torture. The assurance on paper that "such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty" does little to assuage the fears of those individuals in these circumstances who have reason not to have faith in their legal systems as they work in practice.

The mere fact that an individual commits an act of torture to follow an order, obviously, should not make her immune to legal liability, but these individuals do not commit (or refuse to commit) these acts in a political vaccuum. And in the opinion of the Chairmen in question, the courts should be allowed the discretion to weigh the circumstances of the contexts in which an individual receives the order to commit torture when passing verdict, including such things as:

*whether it would be reasonable to believe that the individual could have defied the order without incurring severe physical and psychological harm, etc.;

*whether it would be reasonable to believe that the individual defying the order would find solace in the legal system (either in its current or in some future form).

The Chairmen in question would prefer a modified version of Clause #8 that would allow this sort of court discretion in considering cases of coerced acts of torture. By all means, the courts should subject claims of coercion to the highest levels of scrutiny in cases involving especially heinous acts including torture, but as currently written, this clause prohibits the courts from even remotely considering the element of coercion in its verdicts.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

1. DEFINES torture as any intentional act causing severe discomfort or suffering on a person with the approval or assistance of any government for the following purposes intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or extracting information.

For more betterness, let's try rejigging the punctuation marks a bit:

1. DEFINES torture as any intentional act causing severe discomfort or suffering on a person, with the approval or assistance of any government, for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment, interrogation, or extracting information.

The points raised by Cartographic Boxes are quite important too, I think. It's not realistic to expect people to disobey orders to conduct torture, though there should be a legal backing for them to refuse the orders. Those issuing the orders to conduct torture in the first place are the problem. How about:

8. An order to commit torture is an unlawful order and may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty.

8. An order to commit torture is an unlawful order and may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty.If the order is "unlawful," then why is it only voluntary to disobey it? If my older brother tells me to go rob the corner liquor store so he can get drug money, and I do it, even though I had the option not to, I'm still breaking the law, aren't I?

8. An order to commit torture is an unlawful order and may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty.

I am afraid this modification errs a little too much on the side of leniency. Under circumstances in which an individual may be reasonably expected to disobey an order to torture, she ought to do so; and should she fail to do so, she ought to be held legally liable for her actions. Furthermore, if the element of coercion played no factor in an individual's decision to commit an act of torture, then the element of coercion should be a moot point as far as the courts are concerned.

To address the issues I raised, I think we would have to split the official draft's Clause #8 into two seperate clauses dealing separately with the issues of (a) coerced acts of torture and (b) the legal treatment of insubordination in cases involving orders to torture.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

OOC: I will attempt to draft something to the effect of what I described above later today/tonight, but right now I am probably going to take a quick nap...so...yeah. :p

Clearly you're doing it wrong.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious HackWe hang them by the feet, tie their hands to waist, and cut their throats slightly to let the blood return to the earth. It sometimes takes a long period of time to be sure all the blood is fully out. We hang them come sunrise and remove them at sunsit...
The results are fully what we intend... Their lives are ended...

OOC response to OOC comment:
Wouldn't "physical, sexual or psychological abuse" work just as well?
Yep, drafting error: changed.
What about binding their hands or legs?
I don't know. I wasn't sure whether to include language about restraints: that seemed to me to fall under a more general treatment of prisoners issue. How would it be best worded?
I admit I'm not very well-versed on non-refoulement principles, but what if the prisoner wants to return to his homeland?
Refoulement is forced return. I don't think the language prevents voluntary return, or assisting with voluntary repatriation.

In short, we are fine with requiring nations to respect prisoners' religious obligations as a matter of international law, but we fear that defining such as "torture," and hence a "crime against humanity," is a deal-breaker for us.
Yes, I accept this point. The language about religion was included with some reservation on my part. I would like to include some acknowledgment of this right on a very basic level: prayer, dietary requirements, etc. But you're right that it shouldn't be taken to extremes deleterous to legitimate incarceration, so: I could add in a weasel word such as 'reasonable'? Or perhaps a phrase such as 'except where such observances would infringe the administration of legal sanctions'?

On the issue of the length of Clause 1: yes, it is long. I'm still not convinced that that, in itself, is contrary to the interests of interpretive clarity. Once you get to the end of the sentence it's hopefully clear what it means: it just takes a while to get there! However, given the general consensus it needs shortening, I came up with this modification based on the suggestions of Mikitivity and Kelssek:
‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

On the issue of Clause 8: I know this proposal crosses many issues, and obligation to refuse an illegal order is one of the several that could do with more fleshing out than is really appropriate here.

Nonetheless, I accept Ambassador Chauncey's remarks. A subordinate can be under extreme pressure to obey an illegal order. (I included the word 'manifestly' to differentiate between this and an order a subordinate could not be reasonably expected to recognise as illegal.) Nonetheless, I also agree that the proposed fix would be too lenient.

I'd happily accept any suggestions for improving clarity (bearing in mind the character count is relatively tight: the proposal can perhaps stomach a further 200 characters). In the interim, if I could suggest adding in an extra sub-clause to give courts the specific power to consider leniency as suggested by Ambassador Chauncey, along the lines of 'the issue of coercion may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the prosecution of such cases'. But I will not totally remove the obligation to refuse an order. In the 21st century, 'we were only obeying orders' is a hymn I do not wish to hear.

-- Samantha Benson

I like the reworded version of clause 1.

My government is prepared to support this regardless of any minor word smithing that might transpire.

On the subject of words such as "reasonable", I'd actually encourage them. They will certainly alienate some nations, but I think the goal of any resolution should be to find some middle ground and consensus.

We hang them by the feet, tie their hands to waist, and cut their throats slightly to let the blood return to the earth. It sometimes takes a long period of time to be sure all the blood is fully out. We hang them come sunrise and remove them at sunsit...It takes 20 hours to bleed out? Wow. Your nation is just full of total badasses. You couldn't be more awesome if you tried!


Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

If the order is "unlawful," then why is it only voluntary to disobey it? If my older brother tells me to go rob the corner liquor store so he can get drug money, and I do it, even though I had the option not to, I'm still breaking the law, aren't I?

We're not likely to deal with situations where there are next to no consequences of disobedience. Rather, we're dealing with people who are under the direct authority of people who may give illegal orders, who may face great consequences if they disobey, and in most cases will have been specifically trained to obey authority figures (that would be so of almost any member of the military, police, or other security force). Even without those factors, I would point honourable delegates towards the Milgram Experiment, which illustrated just how powerful the effect of authority can be over a person's conscience.

I agree that "I was ordered to do it" doesn't exempt one from punishment. But we have to recognise the extremely difficult circumstances one who is ordered to perform acts of torture is put into, and as we punish the one who complies with those illegal orders, even more so we must punish even more severely the ones who give the orders.

The new clause 8:
8. An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused; such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty. Coercion may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the prosecution of acts of torture committed by subordinates following orders.
Is the wording a reasonable compromise?

The current draft is now edited in; it's about 70 characters shy of the limit, so any further additions probably need to be accompanied by a suggested edit/removal.

Thanks very much for the comments, everyone.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I have a couple of exams, and a friend's birthday, meaning this probably won't be submitted for another week, so the draft is very definitely still just a draft. I have submitted it as a test run under 'Prevention of Torture' (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=torture); it is not intended to reach quorum, but just to see what size TG campaign I will need.

OOC: The newer version of Clause #8 looks good to me, although I feel a little "wooosh" because of my neverending cold and sleep madness...that and I'm probably going to have to entertain my roommate's friend, who's staying over for the next day or so, while my roommate plays online Risk application game on Facebook....gah. lol :P

I'll probably comment IC in the next couple of days....

I like the new section 8. But if character count is a concern, "manifestly" seems like a superfluous word.

And if such "religious observance" includes self-inflicted harm like wearing cilice belts or clothing, flogging or cutting oneself? Unreasonable requests, such as singing or wailing or other activities that would disturb other detainees or interfere with normal daily activities, like meals, yard time, cell checks, etc.? We don't mind if prisoners want to make elaborate headdresses or costumes for special religious observances; we do mind if it hinders guards from effectively managing the prison population. And you can understand if we won't give them lighted candles for special prayer appointments.

In short, we are fine with requiring nations to respect prisoners' religious obligations as a matter of international law, but we fear that defining such as "torture," and hence a "crime against humanity," is a deal-breaker for us.

My reading of the proposal's wording suggests that this denial of religious observance would only be classified as "torture", and thus be rendered illegal, if it was carried out for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands
so that denying it on sensible grounds (such as that it would hinder keeping those prisoners securely in captivity, or disturb people, or involve actions that would be illegal within your territories if attempted for non-religious reasons, or that you simply don't have access to some of the items required...) should still be considered perfectly allowable anyway.

In case this doesn't hit quorum tonight, the list of approvers as of 10 p.m.:

Approvals: 90 (Quintessence of Dust, The Derrak Quadrant, WZ Forums, Charlotte Ryberg, Finnish Pride, Eiga-Baka, Exaequo, Cordova I, Misplaced States, Daehanguk, The Seniors of Zion, Technoviking, Ropa-Topia, Xele, South Lorenya, Garsidia, Wencee, The Artic Republics, Lucanian Shires, Marari, Sensual delights, Augerthorne, Aatesio, Minyos, Anglo-Arrius, Mivvin, lost highlanders, The Hillow, New Hamilton, Ives-Maxima, Slices Right, Ashmore, Bataaf, Mautu, Wierd Anarchists, Pagemaster, Black Empire, Illyriania, Decapod Ten, Ikradonia, Glenlogan, Kaelere, Saudi burmia, Perpetuating Liberty, Pink basketballs, Aarbearica, Chuck Norris Haters, Ventei, Iron Felix, Arenaea and Alesium, Rome of the Balkans, Rubina, Merapi, Leam Mark Farrar, 1381, Crisorbia, Candelaria And Marquez, Gwenstefani, Ephidael, Vintage Blue, Selemantra, Lord neik, Belarum, Jellydom, Celdonia, South Boston Irishmen, Dewachen, Kings Royal Hussars, die Bueroarbeiteren, Lorii, West Fresno, Ithsword, Jey, Kardavia, Rheingua, Imperial Aaronia, Chickychickywapow, Benedictus de Spinoza, Freebistan, Atherha, Acherea, Maryland and Virginia, ka-Spel, Oshanla, Chazzistan, Pakstania, Ymmij Gnest, Engul, The BNZ, Nazakya)

Hmm, I just don't like [the title] very much. I guess it's alright, but if anyone has any snappier suggestions, they would be eagerly heeded.Some suggestions, off the top of my head (again, assuming this doesn't make quorum this time):

Convention Banning Torture
Anti-Torture Convention
Anti-Torture Act
Humane Treatment Act
International Torture Ban
Ace and Rico Escape from Guantanamo Bay
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Abu Ghraib
END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS Revisited

This did remarkably well for not having any telegrams sent. I'd suggest keeping it mostly the same and dropping "world" from the title. If you resubmitted right after an update and TG'd those 90 folk immediately you'd probably have quorum pretty easily.

How about "Convention Against Torture"? "Ban" might be too strong and/or informal.

Thanks very much, OMGTKK: I had no idea this would accrue so many approvals. The list should be helpful. Also, I'm going to accept St Edmund's answer to your question about religious practices: I think they're right that you could restrict more extravagant ones, because that restriction isn't 'for the purposes of...'. Does that satisfy you?

I understand, torture is cruel, and terrible punishment. But if a nation is in danger, and you need to extract information, to save it. If the man, who knows this info, will not give it to you, easily. Then you must force him to, to save lives, he has chosen to be disloyal to the nation. Simply putting it, we must punish to save lives.:mad::mad:

I understand, torture is cruel, and terrible punishment. But if a nation is in danger, and you need to extract information, to save it. If the man, who knows this info, will not give it to you, easily. Then you must force him to, to save lives, he has chosen to be disloyal to the nation. Simply putting it, we must punish to save lives.:mad::mad:

I've heard this argument over and over again, ad nauseum, just in this particular discussion. Apparently, several people seem to believe that certain crises can only be averted by allowing governments to stoop to the levels of torture.

This belief seems to put an extraordinary amount of faith in the information extracted through torture, faith that simply lacks empirical backing. If my understanding is correct, the information thus obtained tends to be heavily flawed, as the individuals being tortured will say anything they think will end their misery--be it true or not.

Granted, this proposed resolution remains strangely silent on the threat of torture, but this is a loophole I would be interested in closing. This should not require anything more than a minor addition to Clause #3:

3. Torture is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission, or threats thereof are to be designated a heinous crime under national and international law.

As for the new Clause #8, the Executive Council of my country and I are sufficiently satisfied with the revisions, which adequately addresses our concerns regarding coercion.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

Then what are we supose to do, let people die. If we do torture we may get wrong info, if we don't we may not get any. There is no right or wrong answer to this. When we torture, it may not work, when we don't ppl may die. You can chose which one you see fit. But think, we need to come up with a better way, with no loop holes. I am saying this, but I do not agree with the no torture idea UNTIL, and only UNTIL, we find a new way to deal with these problems, in a way that everyone likes and that ensures true info and saving lives.

Can we have an exception for people who type "ppl", "plz", "ur", and "ne1"?

you are just made cause I am right

That bears quoting.

Also, offtopicness.

[QUOTE]

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
- Physical, sexual, or psychological abuse,
- Forced maintenance of physically uncomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,
- Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation,
- Subjection to intrusive noise, such as noise that is continuous or excessively loud,
- Sleep deprivation,
- Deprivation of adequate food and drink,
- Denial of necessary medical care,
- Denial of right to religious observance,
- Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

3. Torture is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission, is to be designated a heinous crime under national and international law.

4. No member nation may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.

5. Member nations shall prohibit torture and attempts to commit torture, and shall treat such acts as criminal offences, including legal penalties reflecting the severity of such crimes.

6. Member nations shall take effective action to prevent acts of torture within their jurisdiction.

7. Member nations may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture.

8. An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused; such orders may be disobeyed without fear of legal penalty. Coercion may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the prosecution of acts of torture committed by subordinates following orders.

9. The training of military and law enforcement personnel, those responsible for those held in detention, and any other persons having responsibility for persons facing interrogation, criminal investigation or detention shall include instruction on the obligation not to perform torture.

10. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation’s jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof.

11. If there is an accusation or probable cause exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed, the competent authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case, and to initiate the corresponding criminal process.

12. Victims of torture have the right to suitable compensation, including the coverage of all medical expenses incurred as a result of torture.

13. Evidence obtained by torture shall be inadmissible in legal proceedings, except as evidence against persons accused of having obtained it by torture.[/indent]
So, this is our Take 2 at a proposal for the WA. Obviously, we'd like all the comments possible on improving the definition, clarification of awkwardly worded clauses, and removal of any ambiguity or confusion. And maybe coming up with a better title.[QUOTE]

Now I understand torture, is WRONG, and cruel. I understand you can get wrong info. But, what else do we have, nothing. We need new ways to do this, that all of us like. So look for my thread called "New Techniques for Extracting Info" post all of your ideas, please, we need ideas.

Granted, this proposed resolution remains strangely silent on the threat of torture, but this is a loophole I would be interested in closing. This should not require anything more than a minor addition to Clause #3:
Excellent catch, thanks. Changed to your suggestion, with a modification for grammar.
As for the new Clause #8, the Executive Council of my country and I are sufficiently satisfied with the revisions, which adequately addresses our concerns regarding coercion.
Excellent. Then I consider this pretty much ready to submit.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: My Philosophy of Science exam - for which I really do need to revise - is the 12th, so I will submit this one or two days after that. Given the long queue of proposals at quorum, there is no hurry anyway.

This has been submitted as "Prevention of Torture" (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=torture). It was 9 characters too long, so I removed the spaces after the hyphens in Clause 2, meaning this is exactly at the character limit.

Please ask your delegate to approve.

I may be jumping the gun a bit, but I believe this will hit quorum by tomorrow's update. It's only 2 approvals away now.

I have decided to offer my nation's support to this proposal.

[OOC: Only one more approval needed... good luck!]

Thank you to everyone who approved it. This has now reached quorum, but only by a slender margin, so I'm going to keep my fingers crossed for now.

Poll added.

Poll added.

Danke! Though since I can't see who voted what, I can't break down the numbers between Delegates, Members, and Non-members. Nor can I collect age of nation info. I'll still generate a graph at the conclusion of the resolution comparing the WA Forum with the overall World Assembly.

My SWAG (Speculative Wild-Arse Guess) is that this forum will probably be relatively close to the overall vote. I miss the old Pilot polls.

I voted no in the poll, but I won't be voting no on the proposal. I tend to do that.

So do others. ;)

The resolution has now reached the WA floor for voting, and already is showing strong support.

My government is looking forward to the general discussion we will have for this important subject, and as mentioned earlier when this was in queue, we strongly support this resolution.

Cassandra Thonberger
Deputy Ambassador

intentionally inflicting pain

so if your unintentionally inflicting "pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person" your good?

"where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity." so i can torture the shit out of you when not commited with government officials?

Coercion may be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the prosecution of acts of torture committed by subordinates following orders.

huh? perhaps its the beers in me, but i really dont know what's going on in this sentance.

IM BACK BABY!!!!!!!!!

So if you're unintentionally inflicting "pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person" you're ok?

By mistake? Yeah, he's not legislating on stupidity here.

"Where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity." So I can torture the shit out of you when not committed with government officials?

He's not legislating on specific internal anti-torture laws either, we're just banning governments from supporting it. If someone tortures someone else in their basement and it's somehow not illegal, that's just odd.

Huh? Perhaps its the beers in me, but I really don't know what's going on in this sentence.

It is the beers in you, as the clause makes perfect sense.

I'M BACK BABY!

Oh thank god, how I've missed you.

The government of the Conch Archipelago has voted against this resolution because the definition of what is to be considered torture is far too broad in their opinion. Specifically, but not limited to, the clauses concerning denial of religious observance, confinment in dark rooms, and prolonged standing.

We feel that to broad wording of the definition will open our military personel to unfounded charges of torture during military conflicts. The two examples that immediately spring to our minds are:

1. In a field hospital triage situation, enemy combatants would be able to claim "denial of medical treatment" when more seriously wounded Conch Archipelago and/or allied soldiers were treated ahead of them.

2. "Denial of adequate food" could be charged in a situation where food supplies required all persons present to go on short rations.

Furthermore, there are concerns that the use of hard labor could fall under this proposal. What are we to do? Allow POWs to idle in air conditioned prisons, eating 3 square meals a day while the underfed civilian population digs their own homes out of the rubble cause by enemy bombing?

The Rogue Naton of Boljovia will regrettably be voting NO to this resolution, due to paragraph 4

4. No member nation may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.

It is a violation of the sovereignty of nations

so if your [sic] unintentionally inflicting "pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person" your [sic] good?
I wouldn't say 'good', but certainly this proposal isn't legislating against you. Exactly what circumstances are you imagining: someone tripping over and accidentally applying the thumb-screws?
"where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity." so i can torture the shit out of you when not commited [sic] with government officials?
Well, not under our national laws, no; I don't know about Decapod Ten's civil code.
huh? perhaps its [sic] the beers in me, but i really dont [sic] know what's going on in this sentance.[sic]
Ok, well, that's nice. I can't really respond, so I'll just try out my own inane announcement:

'My shoelace is untied.'

1. In a field hospital triage situation, enemy combatants would be able to claim "denial of medical treatment" when more seriously wounded Conch Archipelago and/or allied soldiers were treated ahead of them.
No, they wouldn't, not if, as you say, the other soldiers are 'more seriously wounded', because then the denial would not be perpetrated for the purposes of intimidation et al., but for the purposes of triage, which is a universally recognised consideration.
2. "Denial of adequate food" could be charged in a situation where food supplies required all persons present to go on short rations.
Unless your courts are populated by judges of a mind-numbingly stupid disposition, this is going to be pretty unlikely. If there is no more food to give, then again, the deprivation is not being done for the purposes of intimidation et al., but out of necessity.
Furthermore, there are concerns that the use of hard labor could fall under this proposal. What are we to do? Allow POWs to idle in air conditioned prisons, eating 3 square meals a day while the underfed civilian population digs their own homes out of the rubble cause by enemy bombing?
Yes, sorry, you're right, that's exactly what this proposal does.

Why you would purposefully misinterpret a resolution to your own detriment completely eludes me.
It is a violation of the sovereignty of nations
Would you perhaps like to explain in what way it is an unjustified violation of national sovereignty, or should I guess?

-- Samantha Benson

Could this be pinned please?

Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.


This definition of "attempt to reduce.....would include putting a person in jail. If the person goes to the gym and works out every day, incarceration would reduce his/her "physical capacity".

Proposals like these create unintended consequences. Our Supreme Court would, of course be tortured and/or executed if it interpreted this provision to eliminate incarceration, but the WA might frown upon our solution.

Now that this proposal has reached vote, I would like to say a word of long overdue thanks to everyone who assisted in its drafting, and in particular the nations of Ardchoille, Cartographic Boxes, The Dourian Embassy, Kelssek, Mikitivity, Mohandasia, Omigodtheykilledkenny and Rubina.

Of course, all errors and omissions in the proposal (including what I now realize is a slight redundancy in Clause 9) are my own fault.

I look forward to the debate, though I won't be able to post much on Wednesday as I am, ironically, attending a debate hosted by Liberty.

Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

This definition of "attempt to reduce.....would include putting a person in jail. If the person goes to the gym and works out every day, incarceration would reduce his/her "physical capacity".
Please remember, the abuses have to be committed
for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person,
Incarceration is not committed for this purpose: it is done to stop the suspect running away. Hence, it is legal.

-- Samantha Benson

This is the most useless proposal I have ever seen. How will we be able to get the information out of war time prisoners? What are we just supposed to let them sit there till they are ready to tell us? This should just be dismissed because it takes away our control of a situation that might have grave importance to the continuance of our country.

This is another resolution that I have missed much of the debate on, and so Subistratica will be abstaining until further notice.

Also, I would so graciously wish to bid a good "Welcome back" to the Decapod Ten delegate; the debates have been too coherent lately, though the WA Headquarters one had its moments...

The Rogue Naton of Boljovia will regrettably be voting NO to this resolution, due to paragraph 4

4. No member nation may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.

It is a violation of the sovereignty of nations

This is an important clause you've pointed to, and while I agree that it does impose a practice or standard of behavior on nations, the position I'd like to argue is that this clause is a reasonable and legal international request that is consistent with the responsibilities of being a World Assembly member state.

Basically it says that World Assembly nations should not send people to other countries where we know they'll get tortured. This is very important, as it closes a serious loophole. Without this clause, any nation could create a puppet to export people and torture them outside the legal influence of the World Assembly and this resolution.

Cassandra Thonberger

We will be voting against, due to ideological differences.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador
Delegate of the United Nations Region

Gahhh :headbang: Good nations don't you realize. In order to break your enemies Intelligence you need torture. Almost every country in the real world has it. I believe torture should be acted on only enemy military and not civilians Non-leathal torture

If this vote passes the Dictatorship of Bowmany will leave the WA in protest. We shall run our country how we like, the use of torture and violence is key in keeping down the protests of the masses.

:sniper:

I almost support this, but I need a clarification on three things.

-Denial of necessary medical care

Does this mean that if I capture someone with in incurable disease, I'm committing torture?

-Denial of right to religious observance

What stops the prisoners from saying that their religion demands that they go to their homeland immediately or something like that?

10. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation’s jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof.

If I'm at war, can I use this as an excuse to spy on my enemy?

Also, I strongly disagree with everyone claiming that torture is necessary during wartime, for the following reasons.
1. Information received in torture is very unreliable
2. Torture makes a nation look bad to neutral nations
3. Torture helps enemy nations to demonize a nation
4. The mentality of using any means to defeat an enemy is damaging to the morality of a society.
5. If you use any means, the enemy might do so as well.

Torture is immoral and ineffective, so even if it was justified in some situations, they would be extremely few compared to the number of situations in which torture is used despite not being justified.

I almost support this, but I need a clarification on three things.

Does this mean that if I capture someone with in incurable disease, I'm committing torture?


I can field a response to your first question. Anybody in your government's custody that needs medical attention should receive whatever you can provide, but this does not mean the international community expects your government to find the cure to an incurable disease.

That said, if you do, would you share the cure? ;)

Cassandra Thonberger

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.
No doubt this definition is intended to restrict the scope of this proposal to government sponsored torture, rather than recreational torture such as I experience regularly at Madame Whiplash's House of Pain and Pleasure. However, the phrase "with the approval or assistance of a government official" can be interpreted as outlawing the licensing of businesses in this sector of the service industry. For surely such licensing constitutes "the approval of a government official"?

Sir Algernon FitzAlan,
Delegate-of-the-day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire.

We are against this resolution that has been put forth and will not be voting in favor of its passage. If the resolution was amended to allow torture only on military prisoners, terrorist agents, or government officials we of the nation of Alidelphia would rethink our position.

"We the people"

No doubt this definition is intended to restrict the scope of this proposal to government sponsored torture, rather than recreational torture such as I experience regularly at Madame Whiplash's House of Pain and Pleasure. However, the phrase "with the approval or assistance of a government official" can be interpreted as outlawing the licensing of businesses in this sector of the service industry. For surely such licensing constitutes "the approval of a government official"?

Sir Algernon FitzAlan,
Delegate-of-the-day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire.

Greetings Sir Algernon,

It is my government's opinion that your statement is correct. Mikitivity has a Companion's Guild, which is licensed with each of its cantons. The purpose behind this resolution is non consensual torture, and not intended to deal with recreational activities.

I look to the following as the test on what is recreational:

purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person

Cassandra Thonberger
Deputy Ambassador

I'm with Corbatia on this topic. Besides that, I had already made torture legal in my nation. But yeah, how else are we going to get information from terrorist.

Right Wing America reserves its right to torture Terror suspects and enemy combatants. The information we need to obtain is vital to our national security. For this reason we vote no.

We are against this resolution that has been put forth and will not be voting in favor of its passage. If the resolution was amended to allow torture only on military prisoners, terrorist agents, or government officials we of the nation of Alidelphia would rethink our position.

I'm with Corbatia on this topic. Besides that, I had already made torture legal in my nation. But yeah, how else are we going to get information from terrorist.

Right Wing America reserves its right to torture Terror suspects and enemy combatants. The information we need to obtain is vital to our national security. For this reason we vote no.

Except that torture does more harm than good, in addition to it being immoral. There are also other means to get information than torture, such as bribes, offering freedom, spies, defectors, and intercepted messages. Even if there weren't, torture is still extremely unreliable and practically useless.

All right, I am totally AGAINST this! I think that whether or not a country use's torture as a method to punish and deter criminals is not any of the WA's business. It's gotta be THE best deterrent! I mean who wants to be tortured, right? Taking it completely away is to invasive on member nations! Not all nations think like the nation that proposed this, and would be plenty glad to make certain criminals pay for major crimes. I'm sure many nations would still want to have the right to use torture for certain crimes to punish the criminal and to deter possible future criminals. I think maybe a bill that specified what types of crimes should be able to be punishable by torture and who might be exceptions of torture (like minors) would be more appropriate. When I catch a coward terrorist who would be glad to kill himself to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, I don't want to have containment and the death sentence (witch is what they were going to do to themselves anyway!) as my only punishment and determents! :headbang:

I dont belive that someone wants to ban Torture Nations need Torture so they can catch criimnals and stop plots of reballion Nation should vote agianst this so we can keep it

The Holy Republic of Kaldaan will vote against this Resolution!

Nothing in this resolution will ever stop Nations from torturing criminal minds within their own ranks, the only difference it will make is that they will do it without sharing the acquisitioned informations to other members of the world assembly in fear of being persecuted for making sure that their country is safe.
It would be a lot easier if we shared the lethal informations we get from state enemies with other members of the world assembly to make sure that no terroristic attack strikes us all out of nothing.

Would you perhaps like to explain in what way it is an unjustified violation of national sovereignty, or should I guess?

This is an important clause you've pointed to, and while I agree that it does impose a practice or standard of behavior on nations, the position I'd like to argue is that this clause is a reasonable and legal international request that is consistent with the responsibilities of being a World Assembly member state.

Basically it says that World Assembly nations should not send people to other countries where we know they'll get tortured. This is very important, as it closes a serious loophole. Without this clause, any nation could create a puppet to export people and torture them outside the legal influence of the World Assembly and this resolution.

Cassandra Thonberger

Basically what this means is, say there is a nation that practices torture, and in that nation somebody is charged with a serious crime - murder, drugs or arms trafficking, rape, etc. - but that person escapes and comes to my country. That means my nation is not allowed to extradite them back to the country they came from, lest they be tortured.

Now, that looks all well and good right?? Wrong. That means Boljovia can't form an extradition treaty with said nation, and if a Boljovian citizen commits a crime in said torture-nation, they will be tortured. The resolution prevents nations from exercising their responsibility to protect their own citizens.

Actually Boljovia, one could argue that

4. No member nation may enact or provide assistance towards the extradition, rendition, deportation, exile or other refoulement of a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.

Doesn't exactly(in that it's implicit, but not explicit) bar you from extraditing to a nation that is outside of the WA, has banned torture on it's own, and has an extradition treaty with said nation.

You can't return them to a nation that tortures in it's own jurisdiction, but you can return them to a nation that tortures in someone else's jurisdiction.

One could argue that extraditing them to a nation that holds an extradition treaty with someone who does torture qualifies as "assistance", but that's up to you to decide.

It isn't "unreasonable" to define it elsewise. He's closed that loophole pretty tight, but you can always slip something through.

Basically what this means is, say there is a nation that practices torture, and in that nation somebody is charged with a serious crime - murder, drugs or arms trafficking, rape, etc. - but that person escapes and comes to my country. That means my nation is not allowed to extradite them back to the country they came from, lest they be tortured.

Now, that looks all well and good right?? Wrong. That means Boljovia can't form an extradition treaty with said nation, and if a Boljovian citizen commits a crime in said torture-nation, they will be tortured. The resolution prevents nations from exercising their responsibility to protect their own citizens.

First, I understand your point. Your example is good.

Now, obviously the point of extradition treaties is exactly as you've suggested, to bring citizens back home. Given that this resolution will apply to all World Assembly members, you'll still be able to form extradition treaties with other WA member nations.

The problem is that any treaty you might want to form with non members is going to take extra care in making it clear to this other party that as a WA member, that you can't extradite individuals back if they are going to be tortured. I agree, this will be a difficult treaty to work out. However, it isn't impossible, and there is no reason that this other government that might support the use of torture might not selectively choose to not use it according to a series of terms your nation and it might find acceptable.

This isn't the only answer, but I appreciated your sincere interest and polite tone, so I wanted to quickly give you some additional thoughts. Does this help? Ambassador Benson should return in a day or two, we can both ask for her input as well as that from other proponents.

But one last consideration, when my government has identified other nations as having extreme values and legal systems, we advise that Mikitivians do not travel to these nations, because the level of protection we can give them is reduced.

Cassandra Thonberger
Deputy Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Except that torture does more harm than good, in addition to it being immoral. There are also other means to get information than torture, such as bribes, offering freedom, spies, defectors, and intercepted messages. Even if there weren't, torture is still extremely unreliable and practically useless.

If torture is made illegal, the nation of Alidelphia will just begin taking multiple prisoners. Each prisoner will be given the chance to talk during a respectful interview. If the prisoner refuses or is found to be lying then his or her execution will follow. Then the next prisoner will be questioned and the process will repeat.

Actually I think I like this method more than torture. The nation of Alidelphia will be voting for this measure.

:eek::mp5:

All right, I am totally AGAINST this! I think that whether or not a country use's torture as a method to punish and deter criminals is not any of the WA's business. It's gotta be THE best deterrent! I mean who wants to be tortured, right? Taking it completely away is to invasive on member nations! Not all nations think like the nation that proposed this, and would be plenty glad to make certain criminals pay for major crimes. I'm sure many nations would still want to have the right to use torture for certain crimes to punish the criminal and to deter possible future criminals. I think maybe a bill that specified what types of crimes should be able to be punishable by torture and who might be exceptions of torture (like minors) would be more appropriate. When I catch a coward terrorist who would be glad to kill himself to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, I don't want to have containment and the death sentence (witch is what they were going to do to themselves anyway!) as my only punishment and determents!

I dont belive that someone wants to ban Torture Nations need Torture so they can catch criimnals and stop plots of reballion Nation should vote agianst this so we can keep it

The best tactic for fighting a rebellion in a guerilla war is to eliminate the reason that they're rebelling. The more unjust or severe punishments are, the more the people will want to rebel. If you try to negotiate and compromise, the people will have no reason to rebel. Also, I'm unclear about how someone who's willing to give their life for their cause is a coward.

Nothing in this resolution will ever stop Nations from torturing criminal minds within their own ranks
6. Member nations shall take effective action to prevent acts of torture within their jurisdiction.

10. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation’s jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof.
If I'm at war, can I use this as an excuse to spy on my enemy?
Are you impartial? I doubt anyone would believe that, so it would need some sort of sting arrangement with a third nation that you could pull anyway if you were clever and careful enough. I can't see it making much difference, unless your enemy is very stupid.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanant Undersecretary

In light of current policies within the sovereign borders of our fair Empire of Imbar, and in regards to the current World Assembly proposal, we must protest. If our prisoners of war and criminals are to be treated as equal citizens, treated to no discomfort for their crimes against God and Sovereign, then these crimes shall in fact become commonplace, and our prison system a welfare state in its own right.

The passage of this proposal shall have dire repercussions. The World Assembly is acting as though it has no regard whatever for the sovereignty of its member states. If we can not treat our criminals as criminals, and must coddle them and treat them as members of nobility, the Emperor has stated that he will call a council on the subject of Imbar's continued allegiance to the Assembly.

This proposal goes entirely too far. Subversion of sovereignty should not be tolerated.

- Denial of right to religious observance,

had to vote against it because of this. what if religous observance involves something disgusting like human sacrifice

- Denial of right to religious observance, had to vote against it because of this. what if religous observance involves something disgusting like human sacrifice

What?

This particular matter has stirred a national debate that is now raging simulatenously in the Markham Congress and World Council of Subistratica. Our past wartime methods have included eradication of the enemy at any cost, and we have rarely taken prisoners (and, on the occasions that we have, they were promptly executed).
As it stands, popular opinion seems to be for this resolution, but Subistratica shall continue to abstain until further notice.

In light of current policies within the sovereign borders of our fair Empire of Imbar, and in regards to the current World Assembly proposal, we must protest. If our prisoners of war and criminals are to be treated as equal citizens, treated to no discomfort for their crimes against God and Sovereign, then these crimes shall in fact become commonplace, and our prison system a welfare state in its own right.

This proposal goes entirely too far. Subversion of sovereignty should not be tolerated.

Greetings to Imbar,

Do keep in mind that when you mentioned prisoners of war, that your own military will be protected from other nations by this resolution. Perhaps knowing that they won't be tortured, will make your soldiers even more effective and loyal.

Does your government believe that torture is an effective deterrent to crime? If so, what sorts of crimes does your government consider serious enough to warrant torture?

It would be helpful for those of us supporting the basic idea that torture is uncalled for to first better understand when it is being used. Hopefully we can find alternatives.

Cassandra Thonberger

Travda's military is not in the habit of taking prisoners. Our prisons are woefully too few in number to handle any substantial number of POWs, and I'm informed by General Zeke that there's rarely enough personnel and equipment to be spared for prisoner transport. And so soldiers are instructed to kill all enemy combatants unless they are observed to be of high rank. So the matter of torturing POWs is not an issue.

As for "terrorists," criminals, rebels, etcetera, our law enforcement officials have conducted studies and found information obtained via torture was more often than not completely false. They find cash bribes and seduction much more effective. (Of course, the money is all counterfeit and designed to disintegrate within 48 hours, but the prisoners needn't know that detail.)

Travda has no need for this proposal, but in the interest of binding little sadistic dictatorships to our will, we have voted FOR it.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

Ahh, Utopia… that land of prancing ponies and Unicorns, the world where everyone smells of patchouli, follows all the rules and no one is a bad person. Would but that this was our world.

In reality, our world is a cruel, harsh place. This consideration offers forth the attempt to subvert the ability of member states to deal with international criminals properly.

Some Nations may not have the intestinal fortitude to deal directly with world criminals, and would rather ask them politely, “pretty please with sugar on top” when seeking information from them. All well and fine for those nations; the history books are littered with the burned remains of such nations.

Considering this article would make it difficult for local law enforcement to question street criminals, much less national intel agencies gathering data from terrorists, the Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris Votes NO on this Consideration, both as a Member Nation and as a Regional Delegate.

The Federation of Aerins needs to use torture because the nation is under constant terroist threats...

But we propose a less harmful, happier torture:
http://www.explosm.net/comics/1281/

Torture is what the Inquisition do best. Having just introduced a Holy Inquisition to Upper Wales, I am against this resolution.
But also for personal reasons. Especially the term in which the victim may claim compensation.


UpperWales WA Delegation Office
Upper Wales
Albion Supreme

I have nothing to oppose anti-torture QoD. My seven votes are FOR your resolution (#9 if successful).

Most of us would admit that torture for its one sake is a terrible evil that must be stopped. I have no problem with that. If the resolution were written to say that "torture shall not be employed as a form of punishment, nor shall cruel and unusual punishment be employed, nor excessive fines or bail," (I am paraphrasing Amendment V to the United States Constitution) then I would be all for it. However, I am against this resolution as it ignores several importan circumstances that must be taken into account:

1. It is a blanket condemnation of torture which is inflexible and unfair for so broad a legislative body as the World Assembly.
2. It makes no exception, mention, or thought of the real possibility of the use of torture to extract information from already convicted terrorists in order to save other lives. (Perhaps the resolution should ban all torture that is not performed on those convicted of a crime AND only when such torture will yield information that will save lives such as a bomb plot, etc.)
3. It provides for sweeping legislation about an issue that I feel should be the jurisdiciton of the individual nations. This is a difficult issue with many exceptions and special circumstances that must be considered. I think one policy is not flexible enough to meet the needs of the entire world. It is too specific in its provisions and does not respect the States' Rights.

Thank you for considering my dissent. I hope that you will join me in voting down and amending this well intentioned, yet unfair resolution

The United States of the Amercias
Regional Delegate for the Region for Advanced Learning

had to vote against it because of this. what if religous observance involves something disgusting like human sacrifice

No problem. This proposal only forbids 'Denial of religous observance' for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person
so you could still deny them any right to any particular form of religous observance on the grounds that the actions involved (such as human sacrifice, to use the same example) were illegal within your nation...

Travda's military is not in the habit of taking prisoners. Our prisons are woefully too few in number to handle any substantial number of POWs, and I'm informed by General Zeke that there's rarely enough personnel and equipment to be spared for prisoner transport. And so soldiers are instructed to kill all enemy combatants unless they are observed to be of high rank. So the matter of torturing POWs is not an issue.

As for "terrorists," criminals, rebels, etcetera, our law enforcement officials have conducted studies and found information obtained via torture was more often than not completely false. They find cash bribes and seduction much more effective. (Of course, the money is all counterfeit and designed to disintegrate within 48 hours, but the prisoners needn't know that detail.)

Travda has no need for this proposal, but in the interest of binding little sadistic dictatorships to our will, we have voted FOR it.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

A resolution preventing torture of POW's is acceptable, but one barring the torture of terrorists, etc, who may still have plans in effect to harms cititzens at the time of there capture decreases the number of options available to a government trying to prevent such a catastrophe. Even if the government does not use torture, the terrorist still knows they could. If we tie the government's hands, then the terrorists will be emboldened and we will have a hard time getting them to respond to our queries. Innocent people will die.

Well, I guess all three of my objections have been countered, so I will definately be voting for this resolution.

It's amazing that no one has even tried to respond to my arguments. Obviously it must be a technical difficulty that causes people who disagree with me to be unable to see my posts.

I strongly disagree with everyone claiming that torture is necessary during wartime, for the following reasons.
1. Information received in torture is very unreliable
2. Torture makes a nation look bad to neutral nations
3. Torture helps enemy nations to demonize a nation
4. The mentality of using any means to defeat an enemy is damaging to the morality of a society.
5. If you use any means, the enemy might do so as well.

Torture is immoral and ineffective, so even if it was justified in some situations, they would be extremely few compared to the number of situations in which torture is used despite not being justified.

A resolution preventing torture of POW's is acceptable, but one barring the torture of terrorists, etc, who may still have plans in effect to harms cititzens at the time of there capture decreases the number of options available to a government trying to prevent such a catastrophe. Even if the government does not use torture, the terrorist still knows they could. If we tie the government's hands, then the terrorists will be emboldened and we will have a hard time getting them to respond to our queries. Innocent people will die.
As has been said ad nauseum, torture is worthless as a means of obtaining any kind of information. A person under pain will admit to anything or construe a lie in order to seek relief from said pain. (OOC: Spanish Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials anyone?) Keeping a terrorist confined to a prison cell and not torturing him will yield the same results as keeping a terrorist and torturing him. Removing torture won't do anything to "embolden" terrorists; they'll still be tried in a court of law.

And on an unrelated note, there's something I meant to tack on in my previous post. To all the nations moaning how they need torture to stay in power: if you need to torture your own citizens to prevent rebellion, you have no right to be in power in the first place. Viva la revolucion.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

oh you liberal?

does it matter if he/she is liberal or not? I am as well and thats just rude. It's better than being a fascist like you

Fascism is a branch of liberalism. It can be litterally defined as National Socialism. The opposite of liberalism is conservatism or capitalism. It's funny to hear people respond this way...

Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

"Helllao!!! It is me Borat again!!! I would first like to say that this proposal is very bad!! It violates the state of sovereignty that all nations possess. Torture is a very reliable and useful way to get information out of terrorist. Lies are easily spotted. One simple method is to ask the question again after a period of time and they will not remember a lie. So the whole argument that "they will just lie" can be thrown out. The spanish inquisition and the salem witch trials? In Salem witch trials they tortured them to death with no objective other than to kill them. Spanish inquisition was not about getting information. Torture in every level has been proven time and time again to yield results. You would be an "Uzbeck" to vote for this.....proposal. This proposal is soooo bad that I am going to philibuster this proposal. What do you infidels plan to do now!?!?!?!?!"


-Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad

Who is "Phil" and how exactly is he going to "bust" this resolution??

~Tigre Soto

P.S. Word to the wise, kid. Even if we had filibusters in the WA, you'd have to introduce them before the legislation got to vote. :rolleyes:

The Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti is against this resolution for the following reasons:

1) First and foremost, it handicaps nations advanced and developed enough for membership from waging war on equal footing to the barbarians, causing more civilized folk to have to die while standing on hollow principle. In other words, the WA has neither the manpower nor the motivation to prevent any non-member two-bit dictator from torturing OUR troops...why should WE have to do the same and sacrifice our own sacred men and women who have volunteered for our military?

2) Prohibiting torture means denying our war machine one of the basic tenets of rapid intelligence gathering, which could save Possentian lives. This is unacceptable. Enemy combatants are enemy combatants and will be treated as such. If they didn't want to be tortured, they shouldn't have tried to kill us.

3) This legislation in particular as written is almost completely unenforceable as any two-bit dictator who is overthrown and imprisoned can cry "torture" and have time to mount a coup or rescue while the slow-as-molasses WA "investigators" take their sweet time "investigating." It will be used as a political tool. This, as well, is unacceptable.

4) This legislation has a high potential for abuse, for use punitively against a winning side in a war to make the war actually profitable for the loser. This, again, is unacceptable.

War is about killing people and destroying things. Period. Torture is a part of that. Gabriel Possenti is about not going to war, but if we do, our purpose will be annihilation, and nothing less.

Thus, we will NOT be handicapped by a bunch of bureaucrats trying to get us to "play nice" while our non-member neighbors run roughshod over our brave citzenry.

Absolutely not. No, No, No.

You will NOT dictate to us how to wage war. Especially since you cannot prevent it in the first place.

GP

5. If you use any means, the enemy might do so as well.


We fully expect the enemy to do so; We are merely appying his own rules to our side as well instead of fighting with a hand tied behind our backs.

As for someone else telling me the quality of intelligence obtained by torture - such is not for you to decide; It is for Gabriel Possenti High Command to evaluate such things.

Again, you bureaucrats are ill-prepared mentally and emotionally for war, thus, you demonstrate a lack of understanding in its tenets.

And for this reason, we must vote against this "looks good on paper, deadly to allies in practice" legislation.

As far as public opinion, if the Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti goes to war, it should already be well understood in the public opinion that once our troops mobilize, we are no longer concerned with the opinion of anyone who is not actively involved in combat; if they are, then they are either allies to be assisted and aided in any way practicable, or enemy, in which case they are to be annihilated completely down to the last combatant. It is that simple. If there are people who are not actively involved in combat, then their opinion is only of peripheral importance during the conflict, and they can be talked to nicely after the conflict is over and they would do well to stay out of it if they don't want to become collateral damage.

Public opinion has its place. It is not on the battlefield.

GP

Subistratica has decided to vote FOR this resolution.

1) First and foremost, it handicaps nations advanced and developed enough for membership from waging war on equal footing to the barbarians, causing more civilized folk to have to die while standing on hollow principle

If you don't have priciples, what seperates you from these so called "barbarians?"

In other words, the WA has neither the manpower nor the motivation to prevent any non-member two-bit dictator from torturing OUR troops...why should WE have to do the same and sacrifice our own sacred men and women who have volunteered for our military?

Because not torturing enemies is an advantage. From a neutral point of view, if one side is torturing people, and the other side isn't, it's pretty clear who the good guys are. Being seen as the good guys is a huge advantage because it makes everyone more sympathetic to your cause.

2) Prohibiting torture means denying our war machine one of the basic tenets of rapid intelligence gathering, which could save Possentian lives. This is unacceptable. Enemy combatants are enemy combatants and will be treated as such. If they didn't want to be tortured, they shouldn't have tried to kill us.

What about forced conscription?

3) This legislation in particular as written is almost completely unenforceable as any two-bit dictator who is overthrown and imprisoned can cry "torture" and have time to mount a coup or rescue while the slow-as-molasses WA "investigators" take their sweet time "investigating." It will be used as a political tool. This, as well, is unacceptable.

Where in the resolution does it say that? All I see is:
11. If there is an accusation or probable cause exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed, the competent authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case, and to initiate the corresponding criminal process.
Why would the dictator have time to mount a coup that he wouldn't have anyway? It doesn't say that any prisoners are freed until the investigation.

4) This legislation has a high potential for abuse, for use punitively against a winning side in a war to make the war actually profitable for the loser. This, again, is unacceptable.

Yeah, if the winning side is torturing the losing side, which would be illegal.

As far as public opinion, if the Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti goes to war, it should already be well understood in the public opinion that once our troops mobilize, we are no longer concerned with the opinion of anyone who is not actively involved in combat; if they are, then they are either allies to be assisted and aided in any way practicable, or enemy, in which case they are to be annihilated completely down to the last combatant. It is that simple. If there are people who are not actively involved in combat, then their opinion is only of peripheral importance during the conflict, and they can be talked to nicely after the conflict is over and they would do well to stay out of it if they don't want to become collateral damage.

That sounds like a great way to get everyone you go to war with to hate you for a long time. You'd better hope you never lose a war, because if you do, I doubt that your enemy will be merciful. If you ignore public opinion, you also will probably get protests while the enemy has the support of their people. You greatly underestimate the influence of public opinion. Good luck getting the support of neutral nations, by the way.

Torture is a very reliable and useful way to get information out of terrorist. Lies are easily spotted. One simple method is to ask the question again after a period of time and they will not remember a lie.

So you ask the prisoner a question, and he gives an answer. You wait some time, then ask him again, and he gives a different answer, showing that the first statement is false. Then you wait some time, ask him again, and he gives the same answer, showing that the second statement is true. Assuming a week of time for the prisoner to forget, you spent three weeks getting that info. By now, the other terrorist have relized that he has been captured, and changed their plans, or have already done their plan.

What happens if he never repeats an answer? You know that he's lying, but you don't know the truth. Or what if he tells the truth, then lies the next time? You think that his first statement is a lie, when it is true. Or what if he does remember his lie?

In Salem witch trials they tortured them to death with no objective other than to kill them. Spanish inquisition was not about getting information.
In the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inqusition, the objective was to get the accuse person to confess to being a heretic, and in many cases, people confessed even though they were innocent in order to stop the torture. They are examples of false information given though torture.

Wow, I never expected the Spanish Inquisition to come up in this discussion.

This proposal is soooo bad that I am going to philibuster this proposal. What do you infidels plan to do now!?!?!?!?!"

Wait, you want to filibuster this proposal, which would end torture, and we're the infidels?

Ok, I'm back; I hope people will not be overly offended by my not replying to every single comment.

First, a couple of general points.

To the argument that 'torture is effective', I would dispute this. When someone is tortured, their instinct is - I would imagine; I'll admit I've never actually been subjected to anything worse than William Shatner's Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds myself - to say anything that will end the torture. This doesn't necessarily mean they will say the truth: they are far more likely to say what they think the torturer wants to hear. There's no particular reason that should bear any correlation to the truth. To give an example:

In late medieval/early modern Quintessence of Dust, there was a spate of witchcraft persecutions. These tended to happen in the more isolated rural localities, and those accused were predominantly female. A significant proportion were midwives, wet nurses, nurses, or otherwise involved with babies and children. They were often spinsters. They were accused of witchcraft and subjected to torture by the religious police of the Kartoven Empire. They usually confessed: to using the evil eye, to cursing cattle, to infanticide, to vast lesbian orgies, to crimes of increasingly unspeakable and bizarre character. Read today, many of the testimonies are patently false. They were given because as the threshold of tolerance increased, more and more fantastical stories were required to sate the appetite of the torturer.

An interrogation method liable to induce false testimony is not something law enforcement can reliably depend upon. In a situation where that false testimony might misdirect attempts to locate terrorist activities, it seems positively irresponsible.

Second, to the argument that 'torture is [can be] moral', we disagree. And this has the following effect: even in a case where torture would accurately induce testimony, we feel it should be illegal. The idea that even productive methods of enquiry should be denied legitimacy in court is hardly unusual. In most liberal democracies, law enforcement are required to gain a warrant (by demonstrating just cause) before entering premises or conducting a search. Evidence gained from an illegal search is inadmissible.

The particular reason that we feel torture constitutes an illegitimate method of enquiry is that, as the proposal, every person has a right to freedom from cruel and degrading treatment. Not, 'every person we agree with' or 'every person who isn't a terrorist suspect' or 'every person who it's convenient to recognise that right for', but 'every person'. We feel these rights are endowed according to the following principle:

Imagine you are behind a 'veil of ignorance'. You do not know who you are, what your position or station in society is, what your circumstances are. (Basically, imagine you're Senator Sulla waking up after a massive bender.) Under those circumstances, you would not permit torture, because it would be entirely possible you would be the torture suspect. (I won't here comment on what other laws you might enact.) Rights are those privileges you would wish extended yourself, under this system.

That's my argument, anyway. If your police forces really are going to disintegrate overnight on account of this law, then maybe our law enforcement officials can offer some helpful advice. They've been pursuing criminals for years without resorting to torture, and our nation has a very low crime rate.

Zulzakia - many thanks for your valiant defence of our proposal!

Boljovia - you are basically correct. Because of the non-refoulement clause, an absolutely equal extradition treaty would be impossible. But you seem to be getting a bit confused about what extradition actually is. If a Boljovian committed a crime in another nation, you would have no grounds to extradite them anyway. Extradition would be where they committed a crime in Boljovia and then fled to the other member nation. If that nation is unwilling to render them back, then why would they torture them? Refusal of extradition is usually to provide safe harbour. Nothing in this proposal would stop you rescuing your citizens.

-- Samantha Benson

Judging by the most common argument against this, you'd think Jack Bauer was working for all these nations.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

this resolution means nothing.fools who come into my nation trying to enforce their laws will be shot on sight..voting for this or any other resolution passed by this illegal assembly are votes to take away a nations independance.As long as my nation is not forcing our laws on others,then no one will dictate to us..the world assembly is a joke..any nation that values their independance come join Gatesville whre we thumb our noses at these idiots that have nothing better to do than force their views on others..the first world assembly member who dares dictate to Armegedia on her homeland, will be staked in our public square and defercated on by every citizen,and then sent back to the world assembly with Armegedia's answer to their meddling.

Judging by the most common argument against this, you'd think Jack Bauer was working for all these nations.
And you'd think their WA Ambassadors were all 15, intravenous testosterone addicts, and in possession of a serious inferiority complex.

-- Samantha Benson

If you don't have priciples, what seperates you from these so called "barbarians?"


We have principles aplenty; We simply choose not to let our people die because of the hollow ones. I meant what I said.


Because not torturing enemies is an advantage. From a neutral point of view, if one side is torturing people, and the other side isn't, it's pretty clear who the good guys are. Being seen as the good guys is a huge advantage because it makes everyone more sympathetic to your cause.


Because that public opinion makes a lot of difference to warlords like those found in Africa today "fighting for da peoples". Not buying it. If you're not picking up a gun and shedding blood, your sympathies mean very little. As I've said before, when the differences are settled is when public opinion will mean something significant.


What about forced conscription?


Not our problem. Next.


If there is an accusation or probable cause exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed, the competent authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case, and to initiate the corresponding criminal process.


Mmmhmm...first, you have to find the Competent Authorities. Then, the clause "properly and immediately" means that someone has to LOOK like they're doing something expeditiously, but as long as there are justifications that can be argued in court, there can be delay after delay...so "immediately" becomes a complete joke rather quickly because it is not defined in absolute terms like "within 30 days" or "within a week". That one word, "immediately" can be interpreted so widely based upon the context and scope of the investigation as to make it worthless.

"And to initiate the corresponding criminal process." -- yes, after the investigation is concluded. Don't think I don't know what I'm talking about? Go ahead and examine the length of time a MARITIME CRIMINAL LAW case takes...One agency has had to work the same case for two generations becuase it has gone on for 70 years. So yeah, tell me more about this "immediate" nature of worldwide bureaucracy and tell me with a straight face it won't be used to buy time to conduct more nefarious activities.


Yeah, if the winning side is torturing the losing side, which would be illegal.


But of course, the losing side torturing soldiers of the winning side, not being a member of the World Assembly, would be legal.

Unacceptable.

Moving right along...


That sounds like a great way to get everyone you go to war with to hate you for a long time.

Let them; They went to war with us, how much could they have liked us to begin with? Considering that they KNOW what's coming once they start the war, whether or not they hate us becomes irrelevant the moment the first shot is fired. They should have settled their differences with diplomacy.

You'd better hope you never lose a war, because if you do, I doubt that your enemy will be merciful

All the more motivation for our soldiers to do well in combat and not be handicapped by those who are not on the front lines with them shoulder-to-shoulder. And the kind of enemy we are expecting, i.e. those who are not WA members, who are foolish enough to go to war with us in the first place, are never expected to be merciful. So as far as hoping...we don't generally rely on hope in a war. Firepower, discipline, the killer instinct, and the esprit de corps of our fighting forces are much better bets.

If you ignore public opinion, you also will probably get protests while the enemy has the support of their people.

Doubtful. Any government stupid enough to get into a war with us cannot possibly have the support of its people; That, and we don't play agent provocateur games with our own people as a pretext to war. We go to war when the excrement has struck the rotary oscillator so hard, there are heavy percentages of the population actively volunteering for service.

You greatly underestimate the influence of public opinion.

No, We don't. We give public opinion its due, which is higher when we are at peace. When we are at war, as I've said, there will be three kinds of people, no more, no less. Kind number one is Ally. These folks are the ones on our side with the guns. Kind number two is Enemy. These folks are the ones on the other side with the guns. The third kind is Everyone Else. These are the folks who need to stay the heck out of our way while we take care of business.

Good luck getting the support of neutral nations, by the way.

Don't want it, don't need it. If they're neutral, that means they're not helping us, in which case we have no use for them. We won't hurt them becuase they're not attacking us, either, but unless they've got troops on the front lines with ours, their opinion is worth the amount of help they're giving us.

Moving right along...


In the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inqusition, the objective was to get the accuse person to confess to being a heretic, and in many cases, people confessed even though they were innocent in order to stop the torture. They are examples of false information given though torture.

Wow, I never expected the Spanish Inquisition to come up in this discussion.


NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! -- sorry, had to be done (OOC)

It is good that someone brought up the PURPOSES for the torture. In a military setting, you are not worried about confessions or admissable evidence; You ARE worried about troop numbers and movements, and other time-sensitive intelligence material that enemy soldiers in the field are expected to know - acquiring that information quickly will save lives and have strategic value, thus, torture is implemented becuase other methodolgies of intelligence gathering are too slow to be useful; Breaking a prisoner down over a period of weeks to find out what his buddies did last Thursday is not an effective intelligence technique. On the other hand, taking a captured radioman and torturing him for the information he HAS and we KNOW HE HAS will allow us to make more effective tactical plans. Whether he lies or not is a risk inherent AND ACCOUNTED FOR in interrogation, and there are techniques used to determine this, including, but not limited to, cross referencing their information, asking them intelligence questions you know the answers to but it would be theoretically impossible for them to know we know the answers to, among other things.

Intelligence gathering is not an exact science, but it occurs, and torture is a valid methodology in certain frameworks. To ban it outright is to cripple a portion of the intelligence gathering apparatus that can be used to save the lives of our troops and countrymen, and thus, we will not vote for this measure.

It will probably pass, but that's because the people who are voting are never the ones whose lives are in jeopardy in war.

Our troops deserve better. These are people volunteering to die for us; We should NEVER discount any methodology that will allow us to prevent them from being killed; And that includes torturing the enemy for expedient realtime intelligence information.

GP

*snip*
You do realize that WA membership is mandatory, don't you? If you don't like it, then leave. Don't sit there, whine, insult us, and make empty threats.

To the argument that 'torture is effective', I would dispute this. When someone is tortured, their instinct is... to say anything that will end the torture. This doesn't necessarily mean they will say the truth: they are far more likely to say what they think the torturer wants to hear... An interrogation method liable to induce false testimony is not something law enforcement can reliably depend upon. In a situation where that false testimony might misdirect attempts to locate terrorist activities, it seems positively irresponsible.
[OOC: Ever read 1984? This is basically what O'Brien encounters with Winston Smith... when Winston is asked how many fingers O'Brien is holding up, he doesn't even know the right answer so he basically says what he thinks is right. The only problem with this was that O'Brien was able to read Winston's mind, so he caught on pretty quickly.
Sorry, but 1984 is one of my favorite books, and I thought the torture scenes near the end would be pretty good examples.]

Shang Dang votes AGAINST.

I'm busy, so I'll spare you all my arguments of genius.

Well, I guess all three of my objections have been countered, so I will definately be voting for this resolution.

It's amazing that no one has even tried to respond to my arguments. Obviously it must be a technical difficulty that causes people who disagree with me to be unable to see my posts.

OOC:
:) I'll make a point to look back, but I'm not responding to every post. I only have limited time, so I'm focusing on players whom I hope might be swayed. When the ninjas and machine guns make an appearance for a CON vote *or* when the smug gloating of "nobody has said anything worthwhile" comes from a PRO vote, I write those players off as closed minded on this subject. I've seen equal numbers on both sides (depending on the resolution).

That said, sometimes people pose arguments that are in fact very difficult to reply to, and others will go with what they feel they can address.

Because not torturing enemies is an advantage. From a neutral point of view, if one side is torturing people, and the other side isn't, it's pretty clear who the good guys are. Being seen as the good guys is a huge advantage because it makes everyone more sympathetic to your cause.


This sums up my government's opinion, and hence our support of this resolution.

OOC:
See, I didn't reply, as I totally agreed with your posts and moved along.

It is good that someone brought up the PURPOSES for the torture. In a military setting, you are not worried about confessions or admissable evidence; You ARE worried about troop numbers and movements, and other time-sensitive intelligence material that enemy soldiers in the field are expected to know - acquiring that information quickly will save lives and have strategic value, thus, torture is implemented becuase other methodolgies of intelligence gathering are too slow to be useful; Breaking a prisoner down over a period of weeks to find out what his buddies did last Thursday is not an effective intelligence technique. On the other hand, taking a captured radioman and torturing him for the information he HAS and we KNOW HE HAS will allow us to make more effective tactical plans. Whether he lies or not is a risk inherent AND ACCOUNTED FOR in interrogation, and there are techniques used to determine this, including, but not limited to, cross referencing their information, asking them intelligence questions you know the answers to but it would be theoretically impossible for them to know we know the answers to, among other things.


Essentially, nations that permit the use of torture are going to find that enemy soldiers are going to be far better prepared to resist that torture, as they can and will be conditioned to either resist it for some time or worse simply not allow themselves to be captured alive. The problem with that is, a soldier that has nothing to loose is far more effective than one concerned with coming home alive.

At least this is one theory that counters your theory. Both ideas are just that. The problem about torture is it is distasteful enough that it is questionable if there have been any conclusive objective studies. Individuals studying it tend to do so because they feel strongly one way or another, and studies and fictional accountings can be found to support many theories.

The real question is by essentially saying torture is OK, what sort of message does a society send about how it values life? Torture is something that is practiced on an individual in captivity ... somebody who is no longer a serious threat.

The idea that it works largely comes from the belief that control through fear is effective, which ironically is not the basic belief of the World Assembly, where influence and power come through a democratic process.

Cassandra Thonberger

Okay, where are the 1975 people who voted "against" Prevention of Torture? :sniper:

Okay, where are the 1975 people who voted "against" Prevention of Torture?

We've captured them and are now pushing thumbtacks into their skin. After all, they like torture, don't they?

And you'd think their WA Ambassadors were all 15, intravenous testosterone addicts, and in possession of a serious inferiority complex.

-- Samantha Benson

The Most Serene Republic of Irany speaks in response to the honourable delegate for the Quintessence of Dust:

OH, SNAP.

That is all. ;)

Whats the point in the prohibition.

my only problem is that most interregation methods count as torture. asking a person a question that they don't want to answer could be seen as "making them uncomfortable." the "Good cop/Bad cop" routine is in the same category. Torture does not have to be intense physical pain. after all, many people (terrorists, criminals, military personell) have lied under torture. the line used by some Vietnam era pilots was giving the starting line up of their favorite football team's offense or defence. extremes are never the answer. and it's because of these extremes that the sensible interrogation methods are banned under vague legislation.

My understanding of these two points:

-Sleep deprivation,
-Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

would outlaw many forms of entertainment.

More specifically: the second criminalizes ads on TV or radio: ear damage and intellectual anguish. The first means I'd have to put in jail anyone using the internet past their bedtime. How would it not also outlaw caffeine?

How about we include unwilling confinement along with other acts to constitute torture.

Fascism is a branch of liberalism. It can be litterally defined as National Socialism. The opposite of liberalism is conservatism or capitalism. It's funny to hear people respond this way...

Actually Facism and Liberalism is unconnected. Liberalism refers to belief in government control/collectivization/centralization of the economy. Fascism refers to an extremely authoritarian system. The individual is nothing--the state is everything. While a government can be both fascist and liberal, it could also be liberal and libertarian (people's/individual's rights, etc.)

Will this effect certain rituals carried out before the initiation of a priestess?

Before the initiation of a priestess she undergoes a series of rituals involving isolation and participating in blindfold activities (usually a barefoot walk through the temple holding candles).

I agree to outlaw the use of torture for interogation etc.

Nobody is hurt or mentally/sexually abused in any of our rituals. a priestess must be pure and unharmed.:confused:

Okay, where are the 1975 people who voted "against" Prevention of Torture? :sniper:

Right here Goodie two-shoes. :p

I'm here to tell you guys to go against this proposal of Prevention of Torture

If we remove the torture in our country we would also remove the fear of the people to the government and when that happens rebellion will be our breakfast everyday as a leader.

Let's look at it this way...

We're doing this for their own good.

So brothers and sisters of the WA!

Let's vote against this proposal!

If you vote for this proposal...

Don't expect breathing a nice country the next day you wake up cause the people of your country could get inside the leader's house(like the president of US at the White House) and choking your family to death

Believe me...

Been there,done that,don't want that!

We've captured them and are now pushing thumbtacks into their skin. After all, they like torture, don't they?

Oh my Gogaheimers!

Did your mother drop you on your head or just plain stupid?!

The torture is for the safety of the country,not for amusement you desperate homo!

Ok, let's take:

- discussions of the political history of fascism;
- accusations that person x is a 'homo';

and safely dump them out of this thread.

Now that this proposal has reached vote, I would like to say a word of long overdue thanks to everyone who assisted in its drafting, and in particular the nations of Ardchoille, Cartographic Boxes, The Dourian Embassy, Kelssek, Mikitivity, Mohandasia, Omigodtheykilledkenny and Rubina.OOC: Heh. I don't even remember what I did, but you're welcome.

My only concern with this proposal -- aside from the errant notion from "progressive" thinkers that any slight discomfort suffered by prisoners is "torture"* -- is the language from the definition (emphasis mine):

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.The perpetrators of the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib were convicted as rogue officers, as there was no credible evidence that they were, ahem, "under orders." Was the sense here that torture committed by rogue officers should be handled "in-house" -- even if the nation with jurisdiction has no laws banning torture -- and that only nationally sanctioned acts of torture should be counted a violation of international law?

* and even then, only if their captors are American or Israeli. :rolleyes:

Yes, basically. I'm not saying the WA shouldn't ban people randomly torturing one another, but my main concern was with state-sponsored torture. A state-sponsored act of torture is something that has to be dealt with on the international level. The reason for excluding 'private' acts of torture wasn't to condone them, but more because that's a bit of a different issue. I imagine some anarchies in the WA don't even have laws against murder. If a nation wants to allow its citizens to privately torture one another, then arguably that's their business. (actually, I'd probably support a proposal to ban such acts, but my proposal could only cover so much territory.)

So although this proposal is not as sweeping as it could be, it should at least cover the main abuse, that is, state-sponsored torture.

Shang Dang votes AGAINST.

I'm busy, so I'll spare you all my arguments of genius.

Please don't spare us. I'm yet to see any argument that isn't insane.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undesecretary

How stupid is this resolution?!?!


No mental or physicological even if there is no physical?! AKA water boarding... Are you mad?!


You think waterboarding is torture? Suddam would have shown you real torture...

I'm here to tell you guys to go against this proposal of Prevention of Torture

If we remove the torture in our country we would also remove the fear of the people to the government and when that happens rebellion will be our breakfast everyday as a leader.

Let's look at it this way...

We're doing this for their own good.

So brothers and sisters of the WA!

Let's vote against this proposal!

If you vote for this proposal...

Don't expect breathing a nice country the next day you wake up cause the people of your country could get inside the leader's house(like the president of US at the White House) and choking your family to death

Believe me...

Been there,done that,don't want that!

Could you please go into this theory a little more?

If the Leader of any country is constantly under threat why would anyone run for the office? If a leader could be KILLED because a few people disagreed with him, WHY WOULD ANYONE RUN FOR OFFICE? The people who are the strongest and most violent would just rule the country, and impose their law on everyone. Do you think just because you get rid of torture, you get rid of violence? That's absurd. If anything, the threat of torture (WARNING: I'm going to use a big word for you here) is a deterrent to violence and its absence might give the freedom to any aggressive person to be more violent.

Here's something worth trying: thinking things through before you make blunt statements that have no reason to them.

Oh my Gogaheimers!

Did your mother drop you on your head or just plain stupid?!

The torture is for the safety of the country,not for amusement you desperate homo!

OOC: You know, the mods take a rather dim view on flaming.

How stupid is this resolution?!?!


No mental or physicological even if there is no physical?! AKA water boarding... Are you mad?!


You think waterboarding is torture? Suddam would have shown you real torture...

Oh my Gogaheimers!

Did your mother drop you on your head or just plain stupid?!

The torture is for the safety of the country,not for amusement you desperate homo!

We're doing this for their own good.
Don't expect breathing a nice country the next day you wake up cause the people of your country could get inside the leader's house(like the president of US at the White House) and choking your family to death


I'm kind of ashamed to post on the same page as these. How can torture possibly be for their own good? People generally rebel for a reason, for example, that you're torturing people, and that reason is usually beneficial to them.
[OOC: Did you happen to notice that the president of the US is currently alive, despite not torturing criminals?]

My understanding of these two points:

-Sleep deprivation,
-Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

would outlaw many forms of entertainment.

More specifically: the second criminalizes ads on TV or radio: ear damage and intellectual anguish. The first means I'd have to put in jail anyone using the internet past their bedtime. How would it not also outlaw caffeine?

How about we include unwilling confinement along with other acts to constitute torture.
Unless you're making them watch TV "for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person," then it’s not torture.


Let them; They went to war with us, how much could they have liked us to begin with? Considering that they KNOW what's coming once they start the war, whether or not they hate us becomes irrelevant the moment the first shot is fired. They should have settled their differences with diplomacy.

Speaking of diplomacy, have you heard of it? Unless you're trying to get them to attack you, it's good to have the other side not hate you. Sure you can say, "let them, we'll just kill them again," but once you get enough enemies, you're going to have some problems.


Any government stupid enough to get into a war with us cannot possibly have the support of its people

You do realize that it is possible for you to lose a war, right? And why do you have so much faith in Democracy? Democracies aren't the best at forign affairs, since polititians tend to care more about short term solutions that make them look good and appeal to the masses, even if they cause long term problems or are impractical.


If you're not picking up a gun and shedding blood, your sympathies mean very little. As I've said before, when the differences are settled is when public opinion will mean something significant.

We give public opinion its due, which is higher when we are at peace. When we are at war, as I've said, there will be three kinds of people, no more, no less. Kind number one is Ally. These folks are the ones on our side with the guns. Kind number two is Enemy. These folks are the ones on the other side with the guns. The third kind is Everyone Else. These are the folks who need to stay the heck out of our way while we take care of business.


If they're neutral, that means they're not helping us, in which case we have no use for them. We won't hurt them because they're not attacking us, either, but unless they've got troops on the front lines with ours, their opinion is worth the amount of help they're giving us.

Surely you acknowledge that people can switch from "Everyone Else" to "Ally" or "Enemy." They're your enemy or ally for a reason, and if that reason changes, so do they. A nation opposed to torture would be neutral if both sides were doing it, but might ally with whichever side stops. Furthermore, just because they aren't willing to pick up a gun in fight doesn't mean that someone doesn't support you. Neutral nations can still influence wars without getting directly involved by sending supplies or refusing to trade with a side. Or they can even enter a war.

Why would you want to outlaw torture? It is neccessary for national security! What is more important? The comfort of a few criminals or the lives of countless innocent citizens who you are charged to protect.

Could you please go into this theory a little more?

If the Leader of any country is constantly under threat why would anyone run for the office? If a leader could be KILLED because a few people disagreed with him, WHY WOULD ANYONE RUN FOR OFFICE? The people who are the strongest and most violent would just rule the country, and impose their law on everyone. Do you think just because you get rid of torture, you get rid of violence? That's absurd. If anything, the threat of torture (WARNING: I'm going to use a big word for you here) is a deterrent to violence and its absence might give the freedom to any aggressive person to be more violent.

Here's something worth trying: thinking things through before you make blunt statements that have no reason to them.


Yes to Torture,No to Prevention!

How stupid is this resolution?!?!


No mental or physicological even if there is no physical?! AKA water boarding... Are you mad?!


You think waterboarding is torture? Suddam would have shown you real torture...

There was a faint noise coming from behind the doors to the debate hall in the newly built WA building. Then there was silence, which was utterly shattered when a cannonball was sent screaming through the door. The cannonball looked around and eagery wished to shake hands with a few of the esteemed delegates, perhaps they could discuss politics over lunch, or maybe even exchange ideas on renewable energy or the world hunger crisis. But, there was little time for that as the ball was travelling far too fast, even for the most quick tongued politician, to get out so much as a hello before it was sent hurling through the door on the opposite side of the room.

At the door stood a man. He was thin, pale and wearing sunglasses. Beside him was a rather large antique cannon that was billowing smoke from recently being fired with a double charge. Beside the cannon was a large robot that looked like something you could only get by mating a gorilla, a gas mask and a salad bowl. They, except for the cannon, were the new delegation from Zarquon Froods, Sintar Maxen and Joebot™. And they were hear to raise unholy hell.

"Anyone home?" Sintar asked as he walked through the hole in the door. "Sorry about the door, in my counrty that's how we knock."

After reading through the proposal and listening to the debate, Sintar hears the argument from the Xorsack delegation. He looked to Joebot.

"There is no place in this room for feeble minded people." With a nod Joebot walked over to the ambassador and threw him out of the window. "Luckily there is plenty of room out there."

Bottom line: Torture saves lives. Good intelligence saves lives and minimizes casualties. Who knows what the enemy is doing better than the enemy. Sometimes a little evil does more good than the more humane solutions. Its a sort of "Atomic Bomb" debate. The Atomic Bomb hurt many people, but it minimized the casualties at the Pacific Theater.

Bottom line: Torture saves lives. Good intelligence saves lives and minimizes casualties.
This, of course, is assuming that the information you get during torture is reliable... which it usually isn't. As has been said numerous times, people will say just about anything to stop/end their torture, whether it's true or not.

Its a sort of "Atomic Bomb" debate. The Atomic Bomb hurt many people, but it minimized the casualties at the Pacific Theater.

[OOC (because it's an OOC argument): True, but torture and the atomic bomb are two different things. Torture is usually (but not always) performed on prisoners of war or criminals, not average citizens. The AB, however, affected everyone, including a vast number of civilians. Besides, for all intents and purposes, atomic weapons are useless these days because if one country fires an atomic weapon, the rest of the world would probably do the same, and then we'd all be screwed.]

Joebot walked over to the ambassador and threw him out of the window. "Luckily there is plenty of room out there."

The World Assembly Security Officers chuckled as the man flew out the window.

Govanislavia, before you make any more posts, read this extract from The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023):Civility: WA posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the WA. There is a higher expectation of decorum and politeness. Player attacks are not tolerated, whether uncouth language is part of the mix or not. Smilie spam is also more heavily policed in the WA, as it really has no place there at all.

So this post -- <snip> Did your mother drop you on your head or just plain stupid?!

The torture is for the safety of the country,not for amusement you desperate homo!
-- was bound to land you in trouble.

If it was an In-Character (IC) post, your ambassador deserves defenestration, too. When he pulls himself, dripping wet, out of the (restored?) Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool below the window, make sure he has learned not to abuse other ambassadors and in future make it very clear that you are posting IC.

If it was an Out-Of-Character post, take this as a friendly warning from a moderator: your post flamed another poster. Flaming is forbidden on these forums. It can lead to bans, official warnings and the deletion of your nation. Don't do it again.

I would say that it's a no-brainer that most people would be against torture.
(And that is probably why this Proposal seems to be winning support)

But, as it goes against what I personally do with my Nation
And, as there is already at least one Nationstates Issue which deals with this ....
#44: No Pain, No Gain! [Independent Planets; ed:SalusaSecondus]

The Issue
Due to the recent capture of a foreign terrorist in @@NAME@@, high-level military officials want the government to authorize torture to extract information about other terrorist activities.

The Debate
1. "Torture is the only way that we can get these idiots to tell us anything," says General @@RANDOMNAME@@ of @@NAME@@'s special forces division. "After all, violence is the only shared language we have with these scum."

2. "Are you kidding?" states political activist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Torture never works. If anything, it should be outlawed. What do we want to become, genocidal maniacs?

3. "There's nothing wrong with torture, but we can't make it too obvious," says Secretary of Defense @@RANDOMNAME@@. "How about we simply ask them nicely, and then, if they don't tell us, we kill them? That's better just from the intimidation."
.... I have voted against !

Does anyone know how they actually implement these Resolutions ?
(This one will surely pass too) :rolleyes:

You have a good point, I mean I'm not so sure most of the nations that are for this bill haven't been thinking how they want their nations to run, but rather how they would feel for the people be'n tortured as if it was in real life! When everyone first creates their nation, Max Berry asks them to think not how they-themselfs would vote on the questions, but how they'd like their nation to feel and run.

The Zuzakian delegate congratulates himself on his idea of standing outside the WA HQ and holding up signs of what he wants to say: he got a great veiw of that guy falling out the window.



Could you please go into this theory a little more?
Yes to Torture,No to Prevention!
Could you please go into this theory a little more?

To the argument of "torture saves lives," I respond as I have before, that torture is extremely ineffective and unreliable, and makes you look bad to everyone. They'll just lie.

[OOC: I would like for my nation not to be evil, so it is IC for my nation to oppose torture.]

And, as there is already at least one Nationstates Issue which deals with this ....OOC: Irrelevant, especially since the old UN passed resolutions dealing with abortion and euthanasia both of which have issues dealing with those subjects.

Does anyone know how they actually implement these Resolutions ?The game changes your nation's stats based on the category and strength of the resolution.

The regional delegate for New York has voted against this proposal. The Delegate for The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Victories told regional representatives "Well, torture is totally an internal policy choice, it shouldn't be left open for an international body to decide, thats just dumb through and through."

I recently invited him to discuss his arguments on the floor of the WA, but he declined saying, "I won't go to the forums because its like NS General, full of liberals, commie's and general nutcases of every description that need a serious injection of 12 gauge buckshot to the facial area."

I mean it is, but that's not really a reason not to argue your case. In any case since he is not comming here, I'm moving into his office. :p (Assuming we ever get offices ...)

We've captured them and are now pushing thumbtacks into their skin. After all, they like torture, don't they?

We don't "like" torture per se. In fact, I am completely against it. However, this resolution's defintion of torture is entirely too broad.

"Well, torture is totally an internal policy choice, it shouldn't be left open for an international body to decide, thats just dumb through and through."

Can you give a single scenario in which torture would be beneficial? This resolution will improve the WA's general reputation and make other nations more supportive. Would you care to explain why its dumb, or would you just perfer to insult the WA forums?

Jaris Krytellin, the shiny-headed ambassador from what was once Altanar, stands up to speak.

I've been appointed the ambassador of our home region, and drug out of semi-retirement. I'm also glad to announce that, after a prolonged absence, the Altan Steppes is now ready to resume an active role in the WA.

That being said, I'm a bit sad to see that even a blowing-up-of-buildings and wholesale name changes haven't ultimately changed a lot around here. Oh well...back to work.

Krytellin cracks his knuckles and looks around.

I'm frankly a bit appalled at the arguments that some of my fellow ambassadors are bringing to the table in an attempt to shoot this resolution down. The single theme that seems to be repeating itself is the idea that torture is somehow necessary, even salutary, as a tool for national defense and national security.

To believe that argument, one has to overlook the simple fact that torture is a ridiculously ineffective means of providing for that security. When you torture someone, as many of my fine colleagues have pointed out, they'll say and do anything to get the misery to stop. The reliability of any intelligence gained through such methods is about as reliable as a sundial buried inside a cave. I acknowledge that some would argue that there is just as much "proof" that torture can produce reliable evidence; however, when there is in fact a question as to whether or not it even works, how can a nation justify the mistreatment and abuse of other living beings? A civilized one can not.

Even if one does buy the argument that torture is somehow effective for national security (which we do not), ultimately for us it boils down to a question of what a nation stands for. It's all well and good to talk about your values and what you're trying to protect, but if you're willing to stoop to the same level as those who may threaten you (and even lower), you tarnish those values beyond salvage through the immorality of your actions. You prove yourselves to be no better than those you oppose. In our estimation, you should at least strive to be better than those you fear. And we feel that this is a worthy value for the WA to encourage.

The Trilateral Federation strongly supports this legislation, and will encourage our region to cast its vote accordingly.

Can you give a single scenario in which torture would be beneficial?

Unfortunately our region's esteemed delegate refuses to come to the newly created headquarters (which he also voted against by the way) to defend himself. I would not even presume to speak for him, given that I completely disagree with him in the first place.

But in one sense I can see where he is comming from. There are lots of things I think most civilized nations can agree is wrong; murder is an example. And yet one can also argue that murder is not in and of itself an "international" issue. It is an issue handled "interally" by each member nation. Likewise torture, while vile, is not something that is "international" in scope (unless it involves foreign nationals). While I certanly can't personally argue for any nation to have reasons for torture, there is simply not a strong compelling argument to make this an international issue.

Be that as it may, membership in the WA is voluntary. Thus I have voted for this measure because I think it falls under the domain of "common minimial standards you need if you want to play in our little corner of reality." Honestly if a non WA member chooses to torture my citizens I'm not going to torture back in retaliation, I'll just kill the bastards in the most painful way possible.

‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

Pain and suffering as "revenge" isn't covered under torture using the resoluton's definition.

A somewhat heavy set man with pale white skin and thick rimmed glasses walks calmly to the front of the WA to address this proposition. With his speach written in Riejnish in front of him, be begins to speak. The earpeices translate his speach as such.

"No free nation can ever support the use of torture in any situation. It is immoral, cruel, and inhumane. Not to mention against the constitution of Riejn, which says that no Riejnish citizen may undergo cruel, unusual, or inhumane punishment for anything they may or maynot have commited. However, Riejn's son's and daughter's can not understand the definition proposed by this document. Torture is the act of severely harming someone in order to extract information or to punish. Yet some rather...how does one say...gentle practices are condemned as torture. Such as wearing a hood through interrogation, solitary confinement, confinement in the dark, playing noises for long periods of time or very loud, sleep deprevation, and other practices that do not directly harm the person. To classify these acts as torture is ridiculous. If Riejn were to apprehend a terrorists, as we have before, we would find the use of these methods of interrogation to be quiet lawful and as humane as one can be given the circumstances. War is not pretty nor is it humane. Who honestly thinks one can question or punish a terrorist while remaining humane? It is impossible! Soon we will no longer be able to shine bright lights on the terrorist to better see if they're lying or not. Nor will we be able to bind them as it might hurt their wrists a bit too much. In the end we will not be able to ask them very hard questions or refer to them as terrorists but rather "freedom fighters" or "Misunderstood Persons." Riejn is against this proposal and will continue to be so until a better definition of torture can be riched. Thank you." The Riejnish spokesmen walks calmly back to his seat.

This resolution will only ensure that murderers, rapists, and traitors will only fear the release of death or the ease of prison. Torture allows us to deter violent criminals who, otherwise, would not have to endure pain.
I may agree with the prohibition of torture as an interrogation tactic, as the accused will admit to untrue things in order to stop the pain. As for torture as a punishment, the lack of it is a gift to violent criminals.

The ambassador of Rynotia speaks his mind.

"For too long my nation has stood by and tolerated many World Assembly laws that interfere with our internal economy and security. Using torture is the only way to get terrorists and spies to speak the truth and keep Rynotia citizens safe. If this law is passed Rynotia will pull itself from the World Assembly and pursue it's own interests without the interference of this or any other foreign influence."

Bottom line: Torture saves lives. Good intelligence saves lives and minimizes casualties. Who knows what the enemy is doing better than the enemy. Sometimes a little evil does more good than the more humane solutions.

An enemy soldier may or may not have an idea about what the larger military or political objectives are. Do you honestly believe nations would supply their frontline soldiers with key information if there was a chance that nations like yours could actually capture and obtain that information from them?

Ultimately you are saying that the end justifies the means, and frankly my government has never seen any scientific information to support that opinion. Do you have some facts to support this?

Cassandra Thonberger

"The reliability of any intelligence gained through such methods is about as reliable as a sundial buried inside a cave." -The Altan Steppes

So many of the nations arguing for this bill have used and abused the point of how 'torture is an ineffective way to get information' ! Well I've only seen ONE nation that was for this, actually use that as one of it's points! As for the majority of us, we're NOT using that! I ask you to FORGET about this point and don't bring it up again! As far as I'm concerned you're right in that I'll agree with you that I don't think it's very reliable! All right now that we've finally gotten through that tired point, let us look at some better, unanswered points other fellow nations have brought up.

How about the point that several ambassadors (including myself) have brought up: Every member nation should have the right to CHOOSE to be what they think to be "Civilized" or "Uncivilized". This is something that I feel the WA has no right to tell it's nations they can't do. This is not an international affair! If a nation feel's that they want to be 'uncivilized' or 'in-morale', let them be so! If they want to be 'fair' or 'safe', they should have the right to do so in which ever way they think would do so! If they feel that in the case of certain crime(s) of their opinion they feel torture would be a just punishment - They should be able to! This is something that is too largely up to opinion! We should not be told how to think, or what is 'bad' and what is 'good'! I know that there is a large number of you nations out there that feel torture in their opinion is wrong in every case and should be banned, but there is also a large number of us out their that feel it is a just punishment in certain case's and shouldn't be banned. I'm not asking you to vote against this and go against your beliefs, I'm asking you to vote against it because this bill go's against many other nation's beliefs! Vote against this because it is too encroaching on the fellow nation's beliefs and views of what is right or wrong!
If this bill is defeated, go home to your nation and make it illegal, or if you nation feels using torture in whatever case can be right; let them keep it!

PLEASE, let every nation and its leadership think for themselves if it is bad or good! Let them individually decide with their own minds if it should be used, or if it should be banned within their own nation!

Many thanks for hearing Us out, Gervia

You do have the right to decide what is 'civilized'; this proposal makes no judgment on the subject. The World Assembly calls itself 'the world's governing body'. In order to live up to that, it is necessary to govern.

Denial of right to religious observanceSo if before we hang a person they request as a final meal; a yet unborn fetus from a human; we must provide them this as if it is their religious preference to eat such as a final meal when death is calling them. Otherwise we shall be accused of torturing them?

"Civilized" or "Uncivilized" We would asked which is considered of these terms Barbarbic or Unbarbaric do we use with each other when we deal with criminals and their punishment to avoid be accused or torturing them?

Then ask if a man confines a child in a cold dark cage for days and each day rapes them is this civilized and can we be unbarbaric and torture them by a slow death for their punishment.

Also if a person straps a bomb on themselves and walks into the building where you are and turns it into a graveyard are they uncivilized and we barbaric because we do not morn your death.


We have many here waiting transfer back to their home nations for stealing a chicken so we find none waiting to fall under protection of this... as those nations we are waiting to transfer them to do not torture or even hang chicken theives.
probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture.Thus we see no probable cause to not send them back.. and would hope that our requests for the return of our chicken theives is enough to get our citizens returned from other nations.

Riejn agrees with the nations of Rynotia and Gervia and urges all to vote against this proposal. It is a poor definition of torture, and steps over the line between National government decisions and the decisions of the world. This is not an international matter but rather a matter best left to it's own nations.

Gabriel Possenti concurs with Riejn and votes against. For all reasons previously stated added to the fact that the legislation is poorly and loosely worded and does not accommodate the many conditions under which it may be applied inappropriately.

GP

Congratulations! Your resolution was just accepted by the WA General Assembly. Your resolution number will be 9.

So many of the nations arguing for this bill have used and abused the point of how 'torture is an ineffective way to get information' ! Well I've only seen ONE nation that was for this, actually use that as one of it's points! As for the majority of us, we're NOT using that! I ask you to FORGET about this point and don't bring it up again!

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but I think you were trying to say that you only saw one nation claiming that torture was an effective means of information gathering. If that is correct, you must not have been paying attention to the debate; we counted at least 14 nations (Rynotia, Samilyn, Lipardi, Wundertat, Derivant, The Hiearchy, Right Wing America, History land, Amur Panthera Tigris, Aerins, Gilabad, Gabriel Possenti, KevAmerica, Urey) whose representatives made that sort of claim. That was why I addressed it.

Incidentally, all of those nations have now been placed on the TFAS Watch List of Potential Human Rights Violators.

As far as I'm concerned you're right in that I'll agree with you that I don't think it's very reliable!

If it's not reliable, why the need to do it, then?

How about the point that several ambassadors (including myself) have brought up: Every member nation should have the right to CHOOSE to be what they think to be "Civilized" or "Uncivilized". This is something that I feel the WA has no right to tell it's nations they can't do. This is not an international affair!

Normally, we're all in favor of championing national sovereignty over international legislation. However, as the delegation of Altanar did which preceded us, we feel that there are certain things which do merit international legislation and, thus, trump the NatSov argument. The deliberate mistreatment and abuse of living beings is most definitely one of them.

On that note, we are pleased to see this resolution has passed.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Congrats on getting the resolution passed.

Here is a graphic comparing the Overall WA vote with the WA Forum Poll.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mcalamari/NationStates/WA009a.gif

I honestly did not expect the forum poll to be less than 50%, nor for the WA forum to be so skewed as to represent the opposite of the overall WA vote.

However, the overall WA vote did show more activity than the previous resolution. This resolution had 10,502 votes cast, out of a total of ~20,171 WA members, resulting in an activity ratio of 0.52. The previous resolution only had 9,417 (the lowest interest in any WA to date), resulting in an activity ratio of 0.47. I've only recently started tracking the activity ratio (this requires knowing approximately how many nations were in the WA at the close of the vote).

I consider this to be a successful resolution and sincerely look forward to future ones.

From Represenative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

"It appears that there are more "Uzbecks" in the WA than I thought. Any "Uzbeck" who comes into the territory of Gilabad will be shot, urinated on, shot again, and dumped into the sewer. About the Salem Witch Trials, I was responding to a previous "Uzbeck" remark and neither the Salem Witch Trials nor the Spanish Inquisition was about getting information out of the torturees, it was to punish them or to get them to confess a wrongdoing. The point that I offered about the tactic used to thwart lying was in response to the "Uzbeck" who said that they would simply lie to not be tortured and no the terrorists would likely not know that one out of thousands of operatives has been captured. You do not even have to wait a week you can ask them the same question in the next sentence and if they are lying then they will give a different answer. Torture is a very effective tactic for military intelligence. We will not allow anyone tell us how to fight a war or how to run our country. Be warned "Uzbecks"!!!"

-Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad

OOC: The part about the Filibuster was not meant to be taken seriously.....

OOC: The part about the Filibuster was not meant to be taken seriously.....What about the part about not gravedigging?

And the part about: I have no idea how long you've been trying this bit, but there is still no one who finds it funny and doesn't wish for you to just go away, for ever.

I also request a lock.