
by The Northern States of North America » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:54 pm

by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:04 pm
The Northern States of North America wrote:
1.b According to this, torture is only such when a government official, or someone acting as one, administers it. This is false.
2. Disagreeing that torture can be qualified as "confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation." It doesn't cause pain, or suffering.
3. Upset that "uncomfortable positions" and "stress positions" are defined as examples torture. This is just too vague of a description to use.
4. This statement: "Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering," contradicts what torture is. It goes against the first clause.
7. Alarmed that "Member nations may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture."
8. Dismissing Clause #9 as being able to be valid, because it says, "persons having responsibility for persons facing interrogation... shall... not perform torture." According to Clause #1, "‘Torture’ is defined as an act of... severe discomfort... for the purposes of... interrogation." Therefore anyone who interrogates someone and causes discomfort is a torturer.
9. Disturbed that "severe discomfort" is torture.
10. Concerned that victims of torture need to be paid compensation by the government, and also recieve pre-paid medical treatment. "Victims of torture have the right to suitable compensation, including the coverage of all medical expenses incurred as a result of torture." If the government didn't commit the torture, it shouldn't have to pay.

by Normlpeople » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:16 pm

by The Northern States of North America » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:47 pm
I agree completely which is why there needs to be a repeal of the Resolution #9! According to that, uncomfortable situations are forms of torture! Which is ridiculous! Yes I did already say that! oops!"Creating an uncomfortable situation is not nearly the same thing as torture."

by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:01 pm
How can someone achieve that without breaking the torture rule in the first place? If torture is banned, then you legally cannot order me to commit torture. Banning torture, makes torture null and void. Ordering it would violate the banning still because you would be ordering a law to be broken which would break the law. If you order me to break a law, than you have broken the law
Here's a situation, if a person hides a bomb and then is arrested and brought into custody what would you do? He knows where the bomb is, you know that he hid the bomb. If you don't get to the bomb within 5 hours, it will go off and kill many innocent civilians. Do you a. use torture and find out where the bomb is, b. ask politely where the bomb is, c. give in to the terrorists demands, or d. go through a complete investigation in which by the end of it the bomb will kill innocents! Is one life worth that of many others? While you may not agree with torture, other nations may. I believe that everyone should have the choice.

by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:08 pm
2. Disagreeing that torture can be qualified as "confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation." It doesn't cause pain, and should not be considered suffering.
3. Upset that "uncomfortable positions" and "stress positions" are defined as examples torture. Uncomfortable can be many things.
4. This statement: "Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering," contradicts what torture is. You can reduce mental capacity without being tortured.
5. Stressing that clause #4 is flawed. A WA member nation cannot and should not ever be forced to keep criminals wanted in other nations.
9. Concerned that victims of torture need to be paid compensation by the government, and also recieve pre-paid medical treatment. "Victims of torture have the right to suitable compensation, including the coverage of all medical expenses incurred as a result of torture."
Some nations have NO healthcare and therefore cannot uphold this part of the law.

by The Northern States of North America » Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:22 pm
"Your argument hinges on the right to choice, despite categorically ignoring the fact that, when committing torture, you are inflicting unimaginable pain and stress on an individual against their will. You are literally no better than the bomber in your stupid scenario. Other nations may disagree. Other nations are wrong."
1. Acknowledging that "‘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."
"Alternatively, you can use regular interrogation techniques and basic operational intelligence and achieve much better results. An option you neglected to include. Let's go on about options you neglected to include, shall we? Lets look at your justification. One life is worth saving many, you say. What if the victim of the torture isn't a bomber. What if he's a political dissident who is peacefully protesting an oppressive government's harsh regime. Would not the government believe that, by torturing the dissident and sending a message to all other dissidents, they are maintaining order and saving lives? That line of reasoning is repugnant, and yet its the exact line of reasoning you are using.

by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:55 am

by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:20 am
The Northern States of North America wrote:Hahaha! My formatting does suck!
Anyhow..."Your argument hinges on the right to choice, despite categorically ignoring the fact that, when committing torture, you are inflicting unimaginable pain and stress on an individual against their will. You are literally no better than the bomber in your stupid scenario. Other nations may disagree. Other nations are wrong."
Actually, I did agree that torture is inflicting unimaginable pain.
as seen here:1. Acknowledging that "‘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."
I see what you are saying now about the law being added because, banning wouldn't extend to that. I understand.
Also you say"Alternatively, you can use regular interrogation techniques and basic operational intelligence and achieve much better results. An option you neglected to include. Let's go on about options you neglected to include, shall we? Lets look at your justification. One life is worth saving many, you say. What if the victim of the torture isn't a bomber. What if he's a political dissident who is peacefully protesting an oppressive government's harsh regime. Would not the government believe that, by torturing the dissident and sending a message to all other dissidents, they are maintaining order and saving lives? That line of reasoning is repugnant, and yet its the exact line of reasoning you are using.
I actually did give you that option, option "d. go through a complete investigation" in which by the time it takes to gather data the bomb goes off. Statistically, people being tortured are more likely to give true information than false. If you have a few task forces ready to find the bomb, you can keep pressing for true info while your team checks out the "bomb location." I also specifically mentioned this scenario as a response to an extraordinary situation. Peaceful Protesting isn't an extraordinary circumstance, and actually I believe that there is already a resolution protecting peaceful protestors.
I don't mind debating but I really want this thread to be just about the repeal. If you would like to further debate please lets create a new thread... I really just want advice for my repeal, I'm not asking you to agree, I'm asking for pointers on where I misunderstood the original text or where I made an illegal proposal. That is all. We can debate this once it has hopefully been approved to go to the floor.

by Araraukar » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:10 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:The Northern States of North America wrote:I really just want advice for my repeal, I'm not asking you to agree, I'm asking for pointers on where I misunderstood the original text or where I made an illegal proposal. That is all. We can debate this once it has hopefully been approved to go to the floor.
"I am offering you pointers. I'm pointing out that your best option here is to give up and throw this in the trash."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

by The Silver Sentinel » Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:30 pm

by Araraukar » Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:42 pm
The Silver Sentinel wrote:It remains illegal. Like I suggested earlier, go back and read the rules and passed resolutions.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Erewania, Ostrovskiy, Shigatse, The Steam-Gardens
Advertisement