Page 124 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 124
What Do We Know about the World?
dom was introduced, which could allow the extension of security meas-
ures, such as interrogation and detention, also to suspected terrorists4.
As mentioned above, omissions are deliberate non-actions, where
the agent decides not to provide what is requested or needed in order
to achieve a specific effect. The definition that is deliberately not men-
tioned is known not to be shared, and the effects of such an omission
are known by the (non-) speaker. One of the clearest cases of this rela-
tionship between omission and its effects is the lack of the definition of
“torture” in the Russian and Armenian Criminal Codes. The Russian
and Armenian governments were requested to define such a crucial term
in order to curb the violence denounced by Amnesty International and
other international Authorities (CAT/C/34/Add.15, 15 October 2001,
art. 1 (4), p. 3; CAT/C/SR.246, 1996; EUR 54/02/00, April 2000, par.
2). Such governments knew the effects of the absence of a definition,
which allowed them to avoid prosecuting crimes of torture by categoriz-
ing them as “violations of professional discipline.”5 Moreover, they had
any power to comply with the request of the United Nations. The struc-
ture of the act of omitting a definition can be understood from the cases
mentioned above and represented as follows.
Table 5: Omitted definitions – Dialectical profile
4 See for instance the proposal of introducing the “enemy belligerent act in Enemy Belligerent Inter-
rogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. (Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bills/111/s3081 on 24 August 2012)
5 Torture in Russia: »This man-made hell«. AI Index: EUR 46/04/97. Amnesty International April 1997
dom was introduced, which could allow the extension of security meas-
ures, such as interrogation and detention, also to suspected terrorists4.
As mentioned above, omissions are deliberate non-actions, where
the agent decides not to provide what is requested or needed in order
to achieve a specific effect. The definition that is deliberately not men-
tioned is known not to be shared, and the effects of such an omission
are known by the (non-) speaker. One of the clearest cases of this rela-
tionship between omission and its effects is the lack of the definition of
“torture” in the Russian and Armenian Criminal Codes. The Russian
and Armenian governments were requested to define such a crucial term
in order to curb the violence denounced by Amnesty International and
other international Authorities (CAT/C/34/Add.15, 15 October 2001,
art. 1 (4), p. 3; CAT/C/SR.246, 1996; EUR 54/02/00, April 2000, par.
2). Such governments knew the effects of the absence of a definition,
which allowed them to avoid prosecuting crimes of torture by categoriz-
ing them as “violations of professional discipline.”5 Moreover, they had
any power to comply with the request of the United Nations. The struc-
ture of the act of omitting a definition can be understood from the cases
mentioned above and represented as follows.
Table 5: Omitted definitions – Dialectical profile
4 See for instance the proposal of introducing the “enemy belligerent act in Enemy Belligerent Inter-
rogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. (Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bills/111/s3081 on 24 August 2012)
5 Torture in Russia: »This man-made hell«. AI Index: EUR 46/04/97. Amnesty International April 1997
