[Draft] Repeal "Prevention of Torture"

[The Northern States of North America]

Hello All,
I know that there is version of this repeal up for voting, but I don't think it will get enough votes due to various reasons. I would like to see if this repeal would be better. Any suggestions or help with this would be much appreciated. Thank you!


Ok Here It Is:

To the General Assembly,

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."
1.a However noting that "severe discomfort" is too vague of a description to use.
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.
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.
6. Confused as to why Clauses #5, #6, and #8 are redundant. Clause #5 bans torture in the nations. Clause #6 bans requires nations to ban torture. Clause #8 says, "An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order." THIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED in Clause #5.
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.

Overall, Resolution #9 is too vague to be accepted for any longer. The terminology used is open-ended, and there are too many redundancies and contradictions. Therefore, the General Assembly of the World Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #9 "Prevention of Torture."

[Separatist Peoples]

1.b According to this, torture is only such when a government official, or someone acting as one, administers it. This is false.

"No this is only as it pertains to the resolution, which specifically deals with the use of torture by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS."

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.

"Sensory deprivation categorically causes suffering."

3. Upset that "uncomfortable positions" and "stress positions" are defined as examples torture. This is just too vague of a description to use.

"Prolonged discomfort inflicted against the will of the subject is torture. What, exactly, is vague about that?"

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.

"It details that attempted, but unsuccessful torture is still illegal."

6. Confused as to why Clauses #5, #6, and #8 are redundant. Clause #5 bans torture in the nations. Clause #6 bans requires nations to ban torture. Clause #8 says, "An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order." THIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED in Clause #5. [/quote]
"Banning torture doesn't mean that me ordering you to commit torture is illegal. It means you have to choose between disobeying an order, which can get you killed in some places, or committing a crime. This coersion is the basis for so many crimes against humanity, it boggles the mind."

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."

"There is no situation that justifies torture. Any nation that cannot survive without the use of such tactics doesn't deserve to survive."

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.

"Creating an uncomfortable situation is not nearly the same thing as torture."

9. Disturbed that "severe discomfort" is torture.

"You've already brought this up."

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.

"The definition of torture for the purposes of this resolution require that it be done by the government to be applicable in this situation.

"Good lord, this is appalling."

[Normlpeople]

Intern Coco stood "As Clover finds this a difficult subject to speak of, I have again been given the opportunity to address the assembly" She said, obviously nervous. "While Clovers response was essentially 'not a chance', and I cleaned it up a bit, I have to ask, are you planning a replacement?

Im any case, its Clovers vote, and I don't think she is receptive to this repeal."

[The Northern States of North America]

Separatist Peoples, Okay, I understand now that this is government done torture being dealt with. Thanks for the clarification. Ok so it is suffering, so therefore noise canceling head phones are illegal along with blindfolds? Im trying to keep this a very objective repeal, but I don't see how not being able to see your interrogator can cause severe suffering. Being electrocuted is way worse than having a hood thrown over your head. What is discomfort? Wouldn't anyone be uncomfortable being interrogated? If your handcuffs are on too tightly then you have been tortured? I feel like there are plenty of ways for criminals and other citizens can claim that they have been tortured when in reality they have not been tortured. It doesn't define what an uncomfortable position is. Sometimes when I sit in a hard chair, I am uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean I was tortured. Discomfort is vague! If you mean discomfort by using knives to cut or water to choke, that is one thing, but just to put "discomfort" isn't substantial enough. It doesn't say that Attempted TORTURE is illegal. It just talks about reducing mental and physical capacities. 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. At the very least, the clauses could have been combined rather than confuse the reader even more. 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. Repealing this lets another Torture Law be put into place in which laws can be relaxed.

"Creating an uncomfortable situation is not nearly the same thing as torture."

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!

from here on out I would like to have every post be objective. If people want to debate what should happen after the repeal hopefully goes through, we can do that. I just wanna catch mistake and misunderstandings I have put. Thank You


I fixed it up a bit.
Here is draft 2


To the General Assembly,

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."
1.a However noting that "severe discomfort" is too vague of a description to use.
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.
6. Confused as to why Clauses #5, #6, and #8 are redundant. Clause #5 bans torture in the nations. Clause #6 bans requires nations to ban torture. Clause #8 says, "An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order." THIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED in Clause #5.
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. 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.

Overall, Resolution #9 is too vague to be accepted for any longer. The terminology used is open-ended, and there are too many redundancies and contradictions. Therefore, the General Assembly of the World Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #9 "Prevention of Torture."

[Separatist Peoples]

-snip-

"Good god, man. Formatting is your friend. If the judges in your nation are unable to make the differentiation between causing deliberate, protracted discomfort and merely being uncomfortable because of the circumstances, I weep for your judiciary. Expecting the World Assembly to set specifications so incredibly detailed as to include exactly how hard a seat needs to be is the epitome of ridiculous when your own courts can make statutory determinations that best suit the language of the proposal.

"Depriving an individual of sensory input over time absolutely counts as torture. It causes severe psychological damage. Even putting a hood over somebody's face can cause enough disorientation and trepidation to be considered a torture tactic if done properly. I'm sure you'd object if I slapped a hood over your eyes and roughed you up a bit."

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

"That is categorically untrue. If I tell you to break a law, I have done nothing but speak words. I have not broken any laws, and by acting on them, you have. However, if I have some sort of power over you, say as your commander in the military, or as your boss, or I'm holding a gun to your head, I have created a scenario where you are coerced or compelled to act, regardless of your own consent. That is why this clause is in there. Because, otherwise, there would be absolutely no evidence linking me to the crime, despite my actions being the impetus for the crime's commission. This is a basic tenant of law, buddy. How you became an ambassador is beyond me."

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.

"Your entire scenario is taken out of a terrible spy novel, and you should feel ashamed for proffering it. Firstly, torture doesn't work. In your strange scenario, if you gouge out the bomber's eyes and fill the sockets with red hot coals, he will tell you anything you want to hear to stop the pain. It may be the truth, it may be a lie, and it may be somewhere in the middle. What you do know is that he will do anything and everything to stop the pain. After all, he could as easily tell you the wrong location and, in the five hours it takes you to evacuate the area, bring in proper specialists, and locate the thing, it will have gone off.

"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.

"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."

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

"Addressed above."

3. Upset that "uncomfortable positions" and "stress positions" are defined as examples torture. Uncomfortable can be many things.

"Addressed above."

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.

"Quite so. I can deprive you of all but a trickle of water for several days. Or deprive you of sleep. Surprisingly, both are traumatic and are known torture methods."

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.

"They aren't required to keep those criminals, simply not extradite them to a jurisdiction in which their basic human rights will be denied. You're welcome to try them yourself and not torture them, or extradite them to a jurisdiction that will do so."

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.

"Nations are required to have healthcare provided privately or publicly through previous resolutions. Specifically, Quality in Health Services. The only new addition here does nothing to salvage the awfulness of your proposal.

"I'm sorry, but do you actually believe in your own arguments, ambassador? Do you really think it should be acceptable to violate the autonomy of an individual, subject them to cruel and inhumane torture methods, dehumanize and devalue them as sapient beings and treat them instead as a means to an end? Would you not feel moral outrage to see this happen to one of your own species, let alone somebody you knew? It abrogates so many concepts of self-determination and autonomy, even legal principals like the right to remain silent under questioning, that I am absolutely horrified that anybody can find it less than abhorrent. I say again, any entity that needs to resort to this level of barbarity to survive doesn't deserve to survive in the first place."

[The Northern States of North America]

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Opposed due to the ridiculous formatting with underlines, bolds, and whatnot. It isn't fitting for the General Assembly and I'll be proud to vote it down.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

"I am offering you pointers. I'm pointing out that your best option here is to give up and throw this in the trash."

[Araraukar]

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."

Debate should always happen before anything is submitted, because once it's been submitted, it can't be changed. What good is debate if it'll change nothing? In your first thread you asked for help. SP has been providing you help. Don't complain when things are being pointed out as being unfeasible/misunderstood/naive/etc. That is helpful.

OOC: You really should give up; even if you managed to make the repeal acceptable, you'd still run into the "Why do you want to repeal this? Do you want to torture your people? That's sick!" issue.

[The Silver Sentinel]

It remains illegal. Like I suggested earlier, go back and read the rules and passed resolutions.

[Araraukar]

It remains illegal. Like I suggested earlier, go back and read the rules and passed resolutions.

Yes, yes, we heard you the first time. You could be a little more helpful and point out the illegalities in detail, if you wanted.