NationStates

Hatzisland wrote:

Maowi wrote:
Since when is this pro-terrorist? That's just messed up.

I asked for a national security exemption, and my request was ignored. The WA obviously wanted the same thing.

Torture is banned by GA #9, even for national security. Why should solitary confinement be allowed for extracting information? It's unacceptable to drive people crazy in order to get information from them.

Maowi wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
I asked for a national security exemption, and my request was ignored. The WA obviously wanted the same thing.

Torture is banned by GA #9, even for national security. Why should solitary confinement be allowed for extracting information? It's unacceptable to drive people crazy in order to get information from them.

"Because the ambassador is looking for opportunities to abuse prisoners."

Hatzisland wrote:

Maowi wrote:
Since when is this pro-terrorist? That's just messed up.

I asked for a national security exemption, and my request was ignored. The WA obviously wanted the same thing.

(OOC: You can’t torture people anyway, so this proposal is debatably already covered by existing legislation. Furthermore, torture doesn’t produce useful information, since people have no incentive to tell the truth, only to produce information.)

While I support the general premise of this bill, I still by far prefer Tinfect's. Sorry, voting against.

Wallenburg wrote:While I support the general premise of this bill, I still by far prefer Tinfect's. Sorry, voting against.

Yes, I didn't see Tinfect's draft until after I'd drafted this and put it on the forum, and since he didn't object, I just went with it ...

Maowi wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
I asked for a national security exemption, and my request was ignored. The WA obviously wanted the same thing.

Torture is banned by GA #9, even for national security. Why should solitary confinement be allowed for extracting information? It's unacceptable to drive people crazy in order to get information from them.

Just because the WA has bad laws does not mean we should make them even worse. Also, these people are terrorists. It is ridiculous to require them to be treated like guests while they hold critical national security secrets.

Hatzisland wrote:

Maowi wrote:
Torture is banned by GA #9, even for national security. Why should solitary confinement be allowed for extracting information? It's unacceptable to drive people crazy in order to get information from them.

Just because the WA has bad laws does not mean we should make them even worse. Also, these people are terrorists. It is ridiculous to require them to be treated like guests while they hold critical national security secrets.

"I suppose its ridiculous of us to expect you treat prisoners with decency and not torture them, too?"

Kenmoria wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
I asked for a national security exemption, and my request was ignored. The WA obviously wanted the same thing.

(OOC: You can’t torture people anyway, so this proposal is debatably already covered by existing legislation. Furthermore, torture doesn’t produce useful information, since people have no incentive to tell the truth, only to produce information.)

I respectfully disagree with both of your claims. Solitary confinement is not torture, and solitary confinement can help in getting people to cooperate.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Maowi wrote:
Torture is banned by GA #9, even for national security. Why should solitary confinement be allowed for extracting information? It's unacceptable to drive people crazy in order to get information from them.

"Because the ambassador is looking for opportunities to abuse prisoners."

Wrong. Do you think the vast majority of the WA is voting no because they like torturing average people?

Hatzisland wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Because the ambassador is looking for opportunities to abuse prisoners."

Wrong. Do you think the vast majority of the WA is voting no because they like torturing average people?

"I'm not talking about the vast majority of the WA, ambassador. I'm talking about you."

Hatzisland wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Because the ambassador is looking for opportunities to abuse prisoners."

Wrong. Do you think the vast majority of the WA is voting no because they like torturing average people?

I've seen orcs manage worse.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
Wrong. Do you think the vast majority of the WA is voting no because they like torturing average people?

"I'm not talking about the vast majority of the WA, ambassador. I'm talking about you."

That doesn't make your statement any more true. Also, why do you think 70+% of nations are voting no? Do they like torture too?

Maowi wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:While I support the general premise of this bill, I still by far prefer Tinfect's. Sorry, voting against.

Yes, I didn't see Tinfect's draft until after I'd drafted this and put it on the forum, and since he didn't object, I just went with it ...

She.

Hatzisland wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm not talking about the vast majority of the WA, ambassador. I'm talking about you."

That doesn't make your statement any more true. Also, why do you think 70+% of nations are voting no? Do they like torture too?

"No, ambassador. I think the majority are voting against, like I did, because the proposal does not articulate proper policy effectively. I believe you have an ulterior motive based on your comments and stated interests. I believe you're looking for the opportunity to abuse those you have a special contempt for, without regard to their rights as persons."

OOC:
Wait a second. I might have to change my vote.

DEFINES “solitary confinement” as the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time proven to cause problems in an otherwise healthy individual

What about people who are in a state in which they are unable to see and communicate with other people, such as coma patients.
If I bring them into a room to take care of them, they are involuntarily (since we cannot establish their will) confined (since they cannot leave) without the ability to see or communicate with another person (since they don't have that ability at the moment).

Am I stretching the wording overly much?

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC:
Wait a second. I might have to change my vote.

DEFINES “solitary confinement” as the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time proven to cause problems in an otherwise healthy individual

What about people who are in a state in which they are unable to see and communicate with other people, such as coma patients.
If I bring them into a room to take care of them, they are involuntarily (since we cannot establish their will) confined (since they cannot leave) without the ability to see or communicate with another person (since they don't have that ability at the moment).

Am I stretching the wording overly much?

I think the “an otherwise healthy individual” part would exclude coma patients. Outside of that, the proposal only outlaws solitary confinement that causes problems. Being alone doesn’t cause too many problems if you’re asleep/unconscious.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
That doesn't make your statement any more true. Also, why do you think 70+% of nations are voting no? Do they like torture too?

"No, ambassador. I think the majority are voting against, like I did, because the proposal does not articulate proper policy effectively. I believe you have an ulterior motive based on your comments and stated interests. I believe you're looking for the opportunity to abuse those you have a special contempt for, without regard to their rights as persons."

Well, I'm telling you your claim is 100% false, and you have no evidence to prove a "ulterior motive."

Hatzisland wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"No, ambassador. I think the majority are voting against, like I did, because the proposal does not articulate proper policy effectively. I believe you have an ulterior motive based on your comments and stated interests. I believe you're looking for the opportunity to abuse those you have a special contempt for, without regard to their rights as persons."

Well, I'm telling you your claim is 100% false, and you have no evidence to prove a "ulterior motive."

"Your behavior, ambassador, is indicative of this. If your national security is so piss-poor that you can't function without it, then you have bigger problems than the WA has caused. If your national security is not so poor as your actions suggest, then your only motive for this is to abuse. Frankly, ambassador, I have little patience for orcs, and go out of my way to scuttle their political agendas."

Torturing prisoners bad

Hatzisland wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"No, ambassador. I think the majority are voting against, like I did, because the proposal does not articulate proper policy effectively. I believe you have an ulterior motive based on your comments and stated interests. I believe you're looking for the opportunity to abuse those you have a special contempt for, without regard to their rights as persons."

Well, I'm telling you your claim is 100% false, and you have no evidence to prove a "ulterior motive."

I'll have to agree with Ambassador Bell. Your actions are very... concerning when it comes to your national security. Elyreia's security teams are quite efficient, and torture is never required, neither physical nor psychological. After all, people will say anything to get the torture to stop, true or otherwise. It's woefully inefficient and inaccurate method of information gathering.

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC:
Wait a second. I might have to change my vote.

DEFINES “solitary confinement” as the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time proven to cause problems in an otherwise healthy individual

What about people who are in a state in which they are unable to see and communicate with other people, such as coma patients.
If I bring them into a room to take care of them, they are involuntarily (since we cannot establish their will) confined (since they cannot leave) without the ability to see or communicate with another person (since they don't have that ability at the moment).

Am I stretching the wording overly much?

"I believe you are. In Slackertown, we take a very generous amount of freedom to enact WA resolutions as we see fit. This is a good example of why. I voted for this proposal as solitary confinement is already banned in my great nation. We work hard to mentally rehabilitate criminals, and where that fails public executions work wonders."

Sincerely,
The Lord-Prince of Slackertown

Slackertown wrote:
"I believe you are. In Slackertown, we take a very generous amount of freedom to enact WA resolutions as we see fit. This is a good example of why. I voted for this proposal as solitary confinement is already banned in my great nation. We work hard to mentally rehabilitate criminals, and where that fails public executions work wonders."

Sincerely,
The Lord-Prince of Slackertown

Court martials do wonders to heinous criminals. It's a terrible thing to be branded "Nāpāstre naejot se Dārilarostegun" here in Elyreia. Treason to the state is also treason to your military branch and a break of multiple oaths.

I actually received my right eye's injuries from one of those people.

The empire of lynwood is of the beleif solitary confinement is nessesary for certain prisoners such as terrorists, to allow these people in gen pop would put a greater number of innocent members of society at risk, public safet is paramount after all so i'm voting against

Emperor of Lynwood

Slackertown wrote:

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC:
Wait a second. I might have to change my vote.



What about people who are in a state in which they are unable to see and communicate with other people, such as coma patients.
If I bring them into a room to take care of them, they are involuntarily (since we cannot establish their will) confined (since they cannot leave) without the ability to see or communicate with another person (since they don't have that ability at the moment).

Am I stretching the wording overly much?

"I believe you are. In Slackertown, we take a very generous amount of freedom to enact WA resolutions as we see fit. This is a good example of why. I voted for this proposal as solitary confinement is already banned in my great nation. We work hard to mentally rehabilitate criminals, and where that fails public executions work wonders."

Sincerely,
The Lord-Prince of Slackertown

"Public executions, and in fact executions of all kinds, are banned under active World Assembly legislation."

Hatzisland wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: You can’t torture people anyway, so this proposal is debatably already covered by existing legislation. Furthermore, torture doesn’t produce useful information, since people have no incentive to tell the truth, only to produce information.)

I respectfully disagree with both of your claims. Solitary confinement is not torture, and solitary confinement can help in getting people to cooperate.

(OOC: That’s a fine opinion to have, but doesn’t fail very well with what torture is actually defined as in GA #9, which rather very much covers solitary confinement.)