NationStates Jolt Archive

International Terrorism Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security Strength: Significant Proposed by: Nendeln

Description:

We note -

That nations, aware or unaware that they are doing so, are harbouring terrorists in their nations.

We believe -

That terrorism is an unacceptable practice and that the international community should work together to help stamp it out.

We propose -

That the following resolution be passed in order to protect the world and it's people from terrorism.

Article 1

a) Nations are permitted to extradite suspected terrorists to the nation where they are suspected of commiting a terroist act.

b) Nations are permitted to request evidence before extraditing a suspected terrorist.

Article 2

a) Should a nation refuse to extradite a suspected terrorist, the nation requesting extradition may appeal to the UN to reverse the decision of the other nation.

b) A nation not complying with the ruling of the UN may have economic sanctions placed on it.

Article 3

a) Any person convicted of committing a terrorist act must face a minimum sentence of 15 years in jail.

b) Full details of the evidence for and against the person convicted must be presented to the UN after the conviction.

Article 4

Should a person be suspected of a terrorist act in more than one nation, the UN shall decide which nation has a higher priority to question/arrest the person.

Voting Ends: Wed Dec 3 2003

Opinions? :)

There's one fatal flaw in this proposal, monsieur. How do you distinguish terrorism from a legitimate military action or partisan fighting? If you can come up with a satisfactory definition of 'terrorist', I might be inclined to support this proposal. Remember, narrow tailoring.

Who said the military cannot commit terrorism?

in a world largely impoverished by bloated military budgets as it is
such a proposal is an absurdity.

not only an absurdity but far more likely to promote and perpetuate 'terrorism' then to in any way discourage or slow it down.

this whole issue of terrorism is a means for existing governments is a world of increasingly universal access to tecnology, to maintain their corrupt and illigitmate stranglehold on soverignty.

it would come as no surprise to anyone of insight to find that many acts of supposed terrorism are in fact instigated by their own governments to spread an atmosphere of fear that they hope will enable them, as in many instences it already has, to further erode civil liberties and traditional freedoms

making big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people to fight terrorism makes about as much sense as defending your freedoms by throwing them away with the bathwater or killing your dog to get rid of his fleas.

it is precisely the aggressiveness of gratuitous conventionality that it is the price of freedom to be vigilant against!

i would also add that if you hunt mosquitoes with a sledge hammer you will certainly do an impressive abount of dammage and certainly to the mosquito if ever you were to connect, but the odds are rather high that the damage is most likely to be everything else but the mosquito! don't take my word for that. try it yourself. but if you live in a rental or a hotel if you get caught which is likely, you might reasonably expect to be liable for considerable damage that could easily have been avoided had you used even a modest amount of better sense!

=^^=
.../\...

Terrorism is too profitable. We could just level a bunch of countries on a whim.

The problem of defining who a terrorist is is which side of the fence with an issue you are on. In Ulster for example, Protestant groups will consider the IRA terrorists and the UDV heroic, whereas a Catholic will see it the other way around.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It must also be noted that man doesn't turn to terrorism until he feels it his only option.

There's one fatal flaw in this proposal, monsieur. How do you distinguish terrorism from a legitimate military action or partisan fighting? If you can come up with a satisfactory definition of 'terrorist', I might be inclined to support this proposal. Remember, narrow tailoring.

I agree completely. Would it be possible to propose an amendment to the bill with a clearly stated definition, or would the entire proposal need to be reprocessed?

If a definition is not possible in the actual wording of the proposal, I cannot, in good faith, support it.

What about "Crusades"?

It seems to me that "terrorism" is more a question of tactics and organization than of objectives. For instance, you might define a terrorist as a person who is a member of an organization with secret or undefined structure and leadership, who takes military action targeted primarily at civilian targets.

Of course, I'm sure that there are all sorts of historical examples where the "terrorists" are considered the "good guys" by todays standards, so it is hard to make a blanket judgement of terrorism

Some people define terrorism as causing terror, which the military and even the police can do.

Some people define terrorism as causing terror, which the military and even the police can do.

Fire-bombing of Dresden in WWII could be considered a terrorist act. From what I recall, the intention was to demonstrate the power of the allied forces, and break the spirit of the German civilian population. Now, one could argue whether or not it was a justifiable act, but the objectives are remarkably similar to that of a terrorist bombing.

What separates the actions in WWII from terrorism are: 1. the action was conducted by military forces directly in control of specific national governments. 2. The action was conducted as part of openly acknowledged conflict between two governments, with each side openly expressing their final objectives.

(i.e. terrorist acts are carried out by loosley defined organizations, not under the control of any national government, who take actions which do not have a clearly expressed purpose, other than terror)

From a military standpoint, a terrorist is a spy who blows things up.

Terrorists are not recognized military organizations (no uniform, no government, et cetera). If a terrorist is caught in time of war they shoot him on the spot.

If a government sponsors terrorists, then that government is responsible for their actions. If a military organization kills a civilian or POW in a malicious and deliberate fashion (public executions, assassinations of non-military targets) then they aren't terrorists, but the sponsoring government can have warcrimes thrown its way. Of course, there is some debate in many places (like Iraq or the West Bank) about what constitutes a civilian and a military target.

The IRA and the UDV are (my understanding) both paramilitary groups. What they do is illegal and the Brits and the UPF lock them both up quite frequently.

As for terrorists being the good guys, I imagine you are thinking of the Partisans, the Resistance, or even the Patriots. These were all paramilitary groups and they all represented governments. The Partisans and the Resistance represented governments-in-exile and the Patriots represented their states and, by extension, their country. None-the-less, when they were caught out of uniform and in among the general population they were shot on the spot as spies and terrorists. They accepted this as the price of freedom. Reference Nathan Hale of American History.

"Your terrorist is someone elses freedom fighter" doesn't hold water unless an anarchist is your definition of freedom fighter. The historic freedom fighters were military organizations representing prospective governments. This is in stark contrast to the Palestinian authority which claims no control over the terrorist groups while the terrorist groups claim to fight for the Palestinian authority. Either Hamaas is a group of Freedom Fighters, in which case the PA is responsible for their actions (that's a lot of mass murder for Arafat to deal with) or they are terrorists, in which case the PA has no jurisdiction to tell Israel what to do with these criminals.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it to.

First Citizen Matt
St. George's Isles

Nations are irrelevant today. The deepest and most compelling loyalties and allegiances cut across national lines. Our communites are taking on a new form, simply disregarding the state and its authority and demands.

What about intranational terrorism? What punishments can and should be allowed? What should even be defined as terrorism?

:shock: Sambmac is a peaceful nation searching for peaceful resolutions to the world problems. We believe that increasing the military and police budgets in preparation for acts of war or terrorism only increase the likelyhood of such a conflict. When a nation tries to opress a certain people or uses its military and economic might against another country is when terrorism seems to rise. Also is there a difference between terrorism and rebellion? We believe that rebellion or civil war is a matter for the individual country and not for the U.N.
We cannot and will not support this measure!

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Sambmac,
General Secretary Addison Garrett

Of course, I'm sure that there are all sorts of historical examples where the "terrorists" are considered the "good guys" by todays standards, so it is hard to make a blanket judgement of terrorism

A terrorist is someone that kills people, and places terror in the population that it could happen to them next, is it not?

I agree, the definition is too vague. We call anyone who would become a suicide bomber a terrorist by default, when in actuality they are making the ultimate sacrifice and trying to accomplish the most effect with the limited means they have. Another flaw here is that Evidence need be supplied to the UN AFTER a conviction.

I dare say that all international acts being tried before a multinational tribunal is much more appropriate. The victimized nations may NOT sit on the panel or jury, but must be the barrister for the prosecution. And the victim nation may request a penalty be imposed (these will be MUCH harsher than most national sentences) but the final arbiter must be the tribunal itself.

To think that a single nation may act of its own accord and show NO evidence until after convictions are applied is ludicrous. I can think of one very stark example of just how bad an idea this is.

Of course, I'm sure that there are all sorts of historical examples where the "terrorists" are considered the "good guys" by todays standards, so it is hard to make a blanket judgement of terrorism

A terrorist is someone that kills people, and places terror in the population that it could happen to them next, is it not?

That's what the local police SWAT teams do. Are they terrorists?