NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I've been interested in writing this proposal for some time, but have only just gained enough endorsements to be bale to submit it. As it says in the title, this is a *first* draft, and as such will likely not look anything like this when it is finally submitted. Any help for re-writing this would be appreciated.

Habeas Corpus

Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant

Habeas Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeas Corpus by the voting members, Habeas Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefutable legal principle to which all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject.

Recognising that Habeas Corpus is a founding principle of law in many nations, the UN formally adopts Habeas Corpus across all member states.

To clearly define Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 24 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws. Habeas Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting,

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then he or she must be held as per the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs.


I know that it is horribly worded and set out at the moment. That is why I have decided to post the draft here, so that it can be done in the correct manner.

[Edit] I've put the final draft up here as well, so if anyone wants to look at it in its current form, they don't need to look through several pages.

[Edit #2]This proposal has been submitted in the current form.

I am really suprised this has never been done before...But it's the obvious ideas that are the best ones. Although now I think about it I wonder if this has been covered in other previous resolutions???

I don't think so... I specifically checked things like the Definition of Fair Trial. If it has been done, then I won't bother submitting this.

Imprisonment without trial? What do you do with a criminal before proceedings begin? Discharge him with a supoena to appear at court? Thus, we oppose this resolution on the grounds that murderers, rapists, etc. cannot be allowed out of police custody until trial begins. Not to mention that this could take months.

In addition, our nation already has, as all nations have, it's own court of law, specifically nurtured to the needs of our distinct populace and culture, it's laws and principles made by qualified men and women appointed as judges.
We do not need the UN superceding national institutions.

Sorry. :oops: My first mistake. What I meant was imprisonment without charge. Will go edit the draft now. After all, that's why I put up a draft.

Off the top of my head, the usual real-life procedure is that the police can hold you without charge for a certain time - not very long - a day or two at most, I think. Once charged and arrested, you have to face trial fairly quickly, too, though I have no idea if there's a fixed time limit for this or not. The final draft should take account of those two points... some research is needed to help with the phrasing etc, though...

only thing I could find that hints at this was under The Universal Bill of Rights, article 6 "No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses." and Article 7 "Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty."

You might need to refer to these when a more substancial draft is written up

Enn, like, wow. :shock:

Your proposal is fresh, and interesting,

And did I mention darn'd fine?

If you need any help, I've two years of senior high legal studies and a fairly recent text for it, what ever assistance that may be. Telegram me if you've any need of help with research,

- The Rep of Komokom (Wow, my mutual endorsement scheme actually helped some one, shibby! :D , I might actually have been onto something, global village at work... :wink: )

< < < B-U-M-P >> >

Just to get this up on the list alittle bit, :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Okay, here goes with a second draft.

Habeus Corpus
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

As a founding principle of law in many nations, we of Enn believe that Habeus Corpus should be enshrined by the United Nations.

Habeus Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorites within 24 hours of the person being held by police. Once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

If the captured person is a prisoner of war, then he or she must be held as per the Wolfish Convention on PoWs.

Is that better? And yes, any help as regarding more specific legal definitions would be appreciated.

An almighty

BUMP

Is that better? And yes, any help as regarding more specific legal definitions would be appreciated.

Ahem, well, how can I resist?

Ahem, following is my mild re-structuring,

Habeus Corpus, definiton of effect within U.N. law.

Habeus Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeus Corpus by the voting members, Habeus Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefusable legal principle, by which all member nations and internal bodies of which, individuals or groups, both public and private, are subject too.

Further more, Habeus Corpus is:

Recognised as a founding principle of law in many nations, we of Enn declare accordingly that Habeus Corpus should be recognised by the United Nations and as such reasoning pre-noted, be declared by the U.N. as a U.N. formally endorsed law for all member Nation States.

To clearly define Habeus Corpus:

Habeus Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorites of the country which the suspected crime is commited within 24 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nations laws. Habeus Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting,

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict, by forces of who may be recognised as the opposition, then he or she must be held as per the previoulsy recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs.

...

With regards to Enn, :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom. I hope that all came off right... As for that, some one run a spelling check on it, I've a mild niggle... :wink:

Ignore my edit, I went and stuffed up "spelling", oh, the irony...

Whoa... thanks, Komokom!

We feel 24 hours is hardly enough time to interrogate and file charges against the accused, and suggest 48 hours as a more workable time-frame.

Was going to mention that interrogation should not take place without a lawyer (if the defendant so chooses), but after reviewing past resolutions, have failed to find any acts relating to this. So there goes that idea.

In the absence of any laws restricting interrogations to after a charge has been laid, we will amend the next draft to 48 hours, rather than 24 hours. The next draft will probably be tomorrow.

We'd also like to call for additional clause denying Habeus Corpus from terrorist suspects, where the word terrorism means: "the use or threat of action for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause'."

We'd also like to call for additional clause removing Habeus Corpus from terrorist suspects, where the word terrorism means: "the use or threat of action for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause'."

Saying the word 'terrorist' should not give police/government a free hand to imprison. That would hurt civil liberties more than help.

But considering police/government already have a free hand to imprison, this resolution with the suggested clause is still a step forward, is it not?

Unravelling terrorist plots and apprehending the entire terrorist cell takes longer than any habeus corpus would reasonably allow for.

"the use or threat of action for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause'."
This is incredibly vague. Some might use this definition as a way of removing opposition parties from elections, after all, campaigning for an election is 'action'.

Aside from that, I just find your suggestion distasteful.

How so? It permits the right to thieves, murderers, drug traffickers, rapists, and the whole lot. At the same time, it keeps the legitimate power of goverment safe.

Perhaps ammending the definition would help?:
"the use or threat of violence for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause'."

Thank you Enn, I hope I was of some help, :wink:

Also, I noted that comment listed above on terrorists, and I agree with you Enn, after all, just because some one is suspected of being involved in a criminal act, it does not mean they should in any circumstance be blindly considered guilty, After all, we are surely working with the idea of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, are we not? One would hope, and one thinks this proposal will go the glorious distance to aid that ideal.

Cue my usual round of applause for Enn and their ground breaking proposal. :)

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

Thank you Enn, I hope I was of some help, :wink:

after all, just because some one is suspected of being involved in a criminal act, it does not mean they should in any circumstance be blindly considered guilty


Hang on there, no one suggested they are considered guilty. It only allows the police more time to keep a suspect in custody.

It is still up to the courts to decide who is guilty or innocent.

Further more, my personal opinion is to disagree with limiting the time a person can be held without charge to 48 hours rather then the smaller 24, after all,

Might I add you only interogate >>>suspects<<<, any-one else should be considered simply helping with enquiries and be an innocent party with the possiblity of having relevant infomation, and should simply not be held for any period against their free will no matter what, as human rights, thus international law, over-ride the soveriegn nations justice system. Especially if their done so without charge...

I think, I don't know if I am being coherent enough... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

It is just my personal opinion that everyone should have the same basic rights, regardless of what they have done, or they have been said to have done. If my beliefs are not compatible with yours, then we have an impasse.

[Edit] This is addressed to Evil-Catzegovina, not Komokom.

I'd be willing to relent on the 48 hour suggestion if the terrorist one makes it in.

The draft is still in it's early stages. Can't we come to an agreeable phrasing of it?

This proposal so far does not take into account that not all nations are stable.

OOC: The original phrasing is the same as that passed by the British in N. Ireland back in the 70's and 80's

OOC: The original phrasing is the same as that passed by the British in N. Ireland back in the 70's and 80's
Does that make it right? It certainly didn't stop the seperatists/terrorists in Northern Ireland.

At the risk of diverting attention away from the proposal, it certainly didn't make things worse. Anything that helps in protecting the law-abiding population, where such groups exist, should be seriously considered, should it not?

Such groups exist, and are a constant threat in many nations, even those in the UN.

As we said earlier, we should find a clearer way of phrasing it rather than scrap the whole suggestion.

In addition, our nation already has, as all nations have, it's own court of law, specifically nurtured to the needs of our distinct populace and culture, it's laws and principles made by qualified men and women appointed as judges.
We do not need the UN superceding national institutions.

Yes, lets all just ignore the idea of international law and its power over a nations laws. You know, like it does in,

A) Real Life to signitory nations, and

B) In Nation States, also to signitory nations, due to game mechanics, as being a signitory to a passed international law here simply means being a member.

I love 100% enforcement mechanics, its a shibby thing! Cuts out so much "Whine, whine, whine" crap... well, to an extent, :wink:

Since once enacted, this resolution becomes a blanket rule for all UN nations, all I'm suggesting is some flexibility for the police in special circumstances which are applicable in some applicable nations
Since most nations are stable, the clause wouldn't even be invoked in most cases.

Yes, it cetainly will be so, and "flexibility in special circumstances which are applicable" is so vague its laughable, please come up with a credible argument to follow your space filler statement on game mechanics.

Does that make it right? It certainly didn't stop the seperatists/terrorists in Northern Ireland.

She got you there buddy. :wink:

I'd be willing to relent on the 48 hour suggestion if the terrorist one makes it in.

Ah, I see your very reasonable, relenting on dragging people into confinement with no given reason for two whole days is much better, now you've supposedly got a better chance on letting us allow you to destroy the idea of equality before the law?

Aside from that, I just find your suggestion distasteful.

And I would have to agree with her.

Anything that helps in protecting the law-abiding population, where such groups exist, should be seriously considered, should it not?

Indeedy, but not if it means repressing the rights of people simply because they are suspected of a particular crime.

But considering police/government already have a free hand to imprison, this resolution with the suggested clause is still a step forward, is it not?

Errr, no. Equal rights, or proposed lack of, did I mention that?

Unravelling terrorist plots and apprehending the entire terrorist cell takes longer than any habeus corpus would reasonably allow for.

Well hello, at the end of 24 hours charge them for being suspected and have some reasonable evidence to do so, or let them go. Just like many "safe" nations already do, like for example Australia, I'm sure we have a similar set up, well, ignoring our attempts at misguided law to do with terrorists and confining suspects, but we've never had golden human rights records, so, eh (shrugs)

Eh, that all for now people.

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

Firstly, we are not trying to stand against game mechanics. We are obviously a new nation. But just because the game mechanics *can* affect a certain category does not mean it *should*, in all cases, without good reason and careful consideration.

Game mechanics are fine, but again, to clarify, it's also a "shibby" thing to
able to be a member of the UN without passing resolutions to further civil rights at the expense of public safety for no other reason than for the sake of furthering civil rights at the expense of public safety.

But enough about game mechanics.

About this issue:

In my country, I can have my police arrest a suspect and press charges within, lets say 24 hours, or 48, it doesn't matter, really. Because once he's been charged, we can keep him in custody until the suspect goes to trial.
This is whether or not he's a suspected terrorist or not.
You find this appalling, but we can do it anyway according to international law.

What we have offered to this resolution is a suggestion which says *no* a terrorist *is* a greater threat to public safety than a common murderer, and so special conditions *do* apply.

It would enable *all* nations to better protect it's people. Does it have gaping loopholes in it? Yes, we admit it does, so instead of attacking it, why not make it more specific, tack on more conditions?

OCC: I gotta say, You guys are great fun to have a debate with :)

This proposal is not trying to look into laws after people have been charged - we already have a resolution for that (Definition of Fair Trial). All this proposal is about is the rights of persons not to be held indefinitely without charge. I personally do not see any reason why people should be held when no charge is forthcoming, regardless of what they are suspected of doing.

If enough evidence is gathered to charge a person for a crime, then they should be charged for that crime. We should not beat around the bush in legal matters.

Oh yes, and: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Edit] Should I spell this proposal with my native Australian English, or in American English? Just wondering, because I remember people complaining about the euthanasia resolution because it spelt legalise the British/Australian/New Zealand/many other nation way, rather than legalize, the American way.

Oh yes, and: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

In a way, sadly. But it is true.

Should I spell this proposal with my native Australian English, or in American English? Just wondering, because I remember people complaining about the euthanasia resolution because it spelt legalise the British/Australian/New Zealand/many other nation way, rather than legalize, the American way.

Well, I think by now we realise that many people who use american spelling are loud and ignorant of other cultures, but, eh, that probably goes for us all to some level... :wink: I say use Australian then telegram Enodia with it, they are Australian I think, but hey, they are also moderation, and as such their word is that of, errr, law I suppose, :)

Firstly, we are not trying to stand against game mechanics. We are obviously a new nation. But just because the game mechanics *can* affect a certain category does not mean it *should*, in all cases, without good reason and careful consideration.

I dont remember saying that here... And yes, your post counter expresses that bit on your being new, don't worry, I would not hold it against you, its actually nice to see a relative newbie with a grip on things here. :wink:

But in reality, yes, while game mechanics can effect something... usually means they do... Its not a blanket argument you know, its a statement to the fact there are such issues to be resolbved if something is to work, but that not the point, after all, Enn's proposal after some back-ground checking by moi seems all right.

Game mechanics are fine, but again, to clarify, it's also a "shibby" thing to able to be a member of the UN without passing resolutions to further civil rights at the expense of public safety for no other reason than for the sake of furthering civil rights at the expense of public safety.

I don't see how that could be, I though we were enecting, well, proposing too, :wink: , laws which would further rights yet help maintain the protection of society, and in one regard making it better in the long run for all by indirectly making law enforcement bodies gather valid evidence more quickly and efficiently... Thus minimising the risk of law enforcement bodies themselves being a "risk" to the people...

But enough about game mechanics.

Agreed, and when again did they come up? :?

About this issue:

At last... :wink:

In my country, I can have my police arrest a suspect and press charges within, lets say 24 hours, or 48, it doesn't matter, really. Because once he's been charged, we can keep him in custody until the suspect goes to trial.
This is whether or not he's a suspected terrorist or not.
You find this appalling, but we can do it anyway according to international law.

Real life or N.S. ? But anyway, yes, you can, and no, why should whether or not he's a terrorist apply any revelance, they have committed a crime... no wait, they are suspected of having done so... Which is our point in part.

What we have offered to this resolution is a suggestion which says *no* a terrorist *is* a greater threat to public safety than a common murderer, and so special conditions *do* apply.

And we are saying *maybe so*, *but* just because they are a threat does *not* mean they are *any more* of a threat *then* any *other* criminal, what *you* propose is simply not *fair* when you *remember* that all peoples have equal rights and pressumably so before the law. If we follow your way of thinking would could say with equal validity all people detained for a *traffic offence* and *regardless* of presumption of innocence should be held for more then a *week* because they *could* get into a car and commit another offence.

It would enable *all* nations to better protect it's people. Does it have gaping loopholes in it? Yes, we admit it does, so instead of attacking it, why not make it more specific, tack on more conditions?

Yes, it does, Enn's proposal that is.

I did not think Enn's proposal does, but your idea does. The idea of Loop holes being present I mean.

I am not attacking Enn's proposal, I am supporting it, while attacking your proposed ideas to be included, thus in my mind further protecting her proposal. :wink:

"Tack on" does not inspire confidence, rather, makes your ideas sound like shoddy work to keep a building standing, not the most applicable string of thoughts to run along this thread... :wink:

OCC: I gotta say, You guys are great fun to have a debate with

Ditto, but I still think your very very very wrong, :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

But at least the person we are debating with, is actually debating rather than simply writing something like "ALL TERISTS GO 2 HEL! I NUKZ U!"

Certainly makes a refreshing change.

Agreed, its very refreshing...

Exactly where does our esteemed opponent come from, and are there more of them? We must import them quickly, save us rational opponents, save us!

No, I am actually being deadly serious, its rare to get such a level headed opponent, let alone one you can praise with such ease.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I'm in broad agreement with Enn & Komokom on this issue.

OOC: As for the spelling, what's all this Australian/American English nonsense? How about English English? You know, the English that is, um, correct?

*Cringes in anticipation of billiard cues and frying pans*

Gor blimey guvnor and strike me pink if the representative from Ecopoeia ain't struck the nail square on the head. Ain't no-one speaks English proper like wot us English do, 'specially us from Lon'n Tahn.

Yes, dear boy. Although I believe it may be better for all concerned if the definition of English English is not extended to include that frightful guttural abomination that the peoples of Hackney indulge in.

Oi! C'moverere an' say that, you slaaaaag...

(Chuckles madly at the rough East Hackney'ian accent)

Rather my dear friends, though perhaps one should try rather to speak with the air of the old Bostinian gentleman way, so much more refined and applicable to legal documents, and its just lovely for when one wants to mix up which Boston their in and wants to go shove some tea over the side of a ship... Where am I?

All I can seriously suggest my dear Enn, is that you try telegramming the final draft to the mods, by whom I suggest Enodia, and see their opinion on it, and then not forgetting to ask of language, and anyway, just make sure you spell checker it, and things should be fine.

- The Rep of Komokom.

You might want to alter the wording to 'prolonged imprisonment' without trial and specify how long this would be. Obviously the suspect would need to be imprisoned for at least a short time whilst he was questioned and the police decided whether or not to bring charges.

The third draft:
Habeus Corpus

Habeus Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeus Corpus by the voting members, Habeus Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefusable legal principle, by which all member nations and internal bodies of which, individuals or groups, both public and private, are subject too.

Further more, Habeus Corpus is:

Recognised as a founding principle of law in many nations, we of Enn declare accordingly that Habeus Corpus should be recognised by the United Nations and as such reasoning pre-noted, be declared by the U.N. as a U.N. formally endorsed law for all member Nation States.

To clearly define Habeus Corpus:

Habeus Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorites of the country in which the suspected crime is commited within 24 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws. Habeus Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting,

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict, by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then he or she must be held as per the previoulsy recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs.


With thanks to Komokom, as this draft is pretty much the same as he wrote, with a few grammar changes. I've decided to keep it at 24 hours, rather than 48, as I believe that if a person cannot be charged within 24 hours of being taken into custody, then they should be released, albeit with a warning should the authorities believe that required.

I am not budging on the terrorist debate. I do not believe that people should be treated differently, before they are even charged with an offence, regardless of what they are suspected of doing.

Well, at least I tried... I'm sure terrorists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief.

EDIT: *ahem* what I really meant to say was: ALL TERISTS GO 2 HEL! I NUKZ U! :lol:

And ordinary people are breathing sighs of relief that should they ever be implicated in a terrorist incident, they will be treated just like everyone else.

[Edit] I've telegrammed Enodia about this proposal, first to see whether it is breaking any rules I missed, second about the American/Australian English issue.

Praise there for me? :oops: Awww, shucks... :wink:

And praise to you Enn, for championing equality for all, not to mention standing with your principles regardless of others... You Go Girl!

- The Rep of Komokom :)

New draft, complete with spell-checked words.Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeas Corpus by the voting members, Habeas Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefutable legal principle, by which all member nations and internal bodies of which, individuals or groups, both public and private, are subject too.

Further more, Habeas Corpus is:

Recognised as a founding principle of law in many nations, we of Enn declare accordingly that Habeas Corpus should be recognised by the United Nations and as such reasoning pre-noted, be declared by the U.N. as a U.N. formally endorsed law for all member Nation States.

To clearly define Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 24 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws. Habeas Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting,

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict, by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then he or she must be held as per the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs.
Can't believe it took so long to find out that I misspelt Habeas. Well, that's what spell checks are for! :oops:

Can't believe it took so long to find out that I misspelt Habeas. Well, that's what spell checks are for! :oops:

Ha, Enn, fear not, I had to edit one of my posts in this thread earlier when I turned a "spelling check" into a "smelling check"...

Thank-fully I caught it in time... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Edit: And in retrospect I just turned "thread" into "hread"... grrr. :)

Oh yes, this is a 'Human Rights' proposal, and has a 'Significant' strength, for those who came in late.

Well I like it...

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Puts on Pedantry Hat at a disarmingly rakish angle

Forgive me for being niggly; the floor is open for people to counter my suggestions, obviously. I apologise in advance if some of my corrections are due to differences between Australian & British English.

Habeas Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeas Corpus by the voting members, Habeas Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefutable legal principle, by which all member nations and internal bodies of which, individuals or groups, both public and private, are subject too.

The latter part of this sentence is very clumsy, especially concerning the 'internal bodies' and so on. I'd suggest:

"...as a set and irrefutable legal principle that all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject to."

Though I'm not convinced by that, either.

Further more, Habeas Corpus is:

'Furthermore' is one word. The paragraph that follows doesn't sit quite right with me but I'm struggling to work out exactly why. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd be interested to hear them.

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict, by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then he or she must be held as per the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs.

"...area of military conflict, by forces of whom..."

I don't think you need the comma here.

*Removes Pedantry Hat*

Having established quite how boring I can be, I'll head off and compare notes with my trainspotter buddies at the Railway Cafe.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs and Snoozeworthy Pedantry

*Comrade Rust stops showing off his stamp collection in the Railway Cafe long enough to make some pedantic corrections to the pedantic corrections*

The latter part of this sentence is very clumsy, especially concerning the 'internal bodies' and so on. I'd suggest:

"...as a set and irrefutable legal principle that all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject to."

"...a set and irrefutable legal principle to which all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject" is less awkward.

The paragraph that follows doesn't sit quite right with me but I'm struggling to work out exactly why. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd be interested to hear them.

I think the problem with this paragraph:

Further more, Habeas Corpus is:

Recognised as a founding principle of law in many nations, we of Enn declare accordingly that Habeas Corpus should be recognised by the United Nations and as such reasoning pre-noted, be declared by the U.N. as a U.N. formally endorsed law for all member Nation States.

The problem with this as we see it is that a UN resolution shouldn't have Enn declaring something, it should be the whole UN declaring it. And that "should" is unnecessary, since the proposal isn't Enn asking the UN to recognise Habeas Corpus, it's the whole UN declaring that it recognises Habeas Corpus. Erm, hope that's clear.

So how about:
Recognising that Habeas Corpus is a founding principle of law in many nations, the UN formally adopts Habeas Corpus across all member states.

Or something like that.

Comrade Rust
Delegate for Ludicrous Pedantry

So, how's this...
Habeas Corpus

Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant

Habeas Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeas Corpus by the voting members, Habeas Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefutable legal principle to which all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject.

Recognising that Habeas Corpus is a founding principle of law in many nations, the UN formally adopts Habeas Corpus across all member states.

To clearly define Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 24 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws. Habeas Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting,

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then he or she must be held as per the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs.

Pedantry is appreciated, because I'm sure people would just point out the same things after submission. This will be the final draft, I've decided. So, if anyone has any more problems, say them now.

I've contacted Enodia, and Aussie English should be fine.

Also, thanks to Komokom, East Hackney and Ecopoeia for help drafting this proposal, and thanks to Evil-Catzegovina for an actual debate with someone who not only has a sense of humour, but also debates in a reasonable manner, although he was in the end unsuccessful.

BUMP overnight for good measure. Yes, I know in America it is morning, but I'm in Australia, and I'm tired.

[ [ [ BUMP ] ] ]

:)

- The Rep of Komokom.

With respect to the proposer, I do not see how this can be reconciled with the current anti-terrorist legislation set up in the UK which, it is submitted, is soundly drafted.
Although it is obvious that any law respecting person would wish to avoid the abhorrent miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the US gov't against the people held at Guantanamo Bay, there must be some measure for a government to legally detain a person, suspected of terrorist offences, for a period exceeding 24 or 48 hours. The current system of bail in the UK permits for a 96 hour holding period, and it is submitted that in the case of terrorists where other 'cell' members may be warned by a person released from custody, this period should be extended to whatever time is considered reasonable to help the detection of criminal, the prevention of further crime and the thorough investigation of any activity.
Interested Peoples cannot endorse this proposal.

Whilst I agree with the general spirit of the bill I agree with interested peoples and that some special allowances must be made to take into account the threat of terrorism. Otherwise I too would find it hard to support the proposal. That said I would commend its author for the creation of a detailed and well thought out bill that will stand in stark contrast to many of the other proposals suggested for a UN vote.

With respect to the proposer, I do not see how this can be reconciled with the current anti-terrorist legislation set up in the UK which, it is submitted, is soundly drafted.
Although it is obvious that any law respecting person would wish to avoid the abhorrent miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the US gov't against the people held at Guantanamo Bay, there must be some measure for a government to legally detain a person, suspected of terrorist offences, for a period exceeding 24 or 48 hours. The current system of bail in the UK permits for a 96 hour holding period, and it is submitted that in the case of terrorists where other 'cell' members may be warned by a person released from custody, this period should be extended to whatever time is considered reasonable to help the detection of criminal, the prevention of further crime and the thorough investigation of any activity.
Interested Peoples cannot endorse this proposal.

1) I'm sorry, this is Nation States, not the real world, what is this mysterious U.K. you speak of? :?

2) US Govt. ? Guantanamo bay? Sorry, did I mention this was Nation States? :?

3) Ah, if your going to release a suspected cell member, then persue and watch over their every move with trained proffesionals. As you do. One would hope, after all, we're not proposing you get them a paid cab fair when they are released or give them a lift home in a police car.

4) Sorry, but I think "Interested Peoples" are going to meet quite a few "Peoples Un-interested" in their views, when they are based on these strange fictional locations and names... :wink:

Lol, sorry Komokom, but i'm relatively new to this and still trying to get the hang of it.
Rephrased without reference to fictional places :wink: , this proposal should be amended to legislate for terrorist, or suspected terrorist offences and actions. There are certain instances where detention needs to be prolonged and it is our submission that these are written into the proposal, in order that such persons cannot warn any affiliates, hide or destroy evidence or leave the country before the nation has had a chance to fully investigate the matter.

As I have repeatedly stated, if there is enough evidence to charge someone, then they should be charged. Other than that, this proposal does not go into investgation of persons. I personally do not have any problem with police observing suspects.

See, if you want to charge some one at the end of this 24 hr period, then make sure you have the evidence needed to do so, otherwise let hem go in accordance to the law, welll, soon, I would hope, :wink:

I know I am repeating what Enn said, its just maybe if its repeated some more people will get it, as previous posts have not had such a desired affect yet it seems...

No worries, Interested peoples, its my habit from dealing with people who try to use the U.S. constitution in debates why gay marriage, abortion, or anything else, should be banned, tends to make me go a little of the far side, lol. I see you are a tad new here, so consider any percieved "grrr-ness" on my part dropped.

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

See, if you want to charge some one at the end of this 24 hr period, then make sure you have the evidence needed to do so, otherwise let hem go in accordance to the law, welll, soon, I would hope, :wink:

I know I am repeating what Enn said, its just maybe if its repeated some more people will get it, as previous posts have not had such a desired affect yet it seems...

No worries, Interested peoples, its my habit from dealing with people who try to use the U.S. constitution in debates why gay marriage, abortion, or anything else, should be banned, tends to make me go a little of the far side, lol. I see you are a tad new here, so consider any percieved "grrr-ness" on my part dropped.

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

It's ok Komokom, i understand. However, as for the 24 hours, it's way too short a time to compile evidence against a person. I think this should be extended to AT LEAST 96 hours. Imagine a person is arrested on a Friday night and the evidence that needs to be obtained isn't available until Monday? You release the suspect on the Saturday for lack of evidence? This could be a dangerous thing to do, especially with terrorists. Removing passports etc is not an answer because if these people are terrorists they will have ways and means to circumvent the normal rules as to identification and movement between states.
Remember, this is the exception, not the rule. However, it needs to be addressed with the rising amount of terrorism which can be witnessed on these boards.

It is my understanding that evidence should be compiled prior to arrest, let alone charge.

And consider yourself lucky you've got 24 hours. In the original proposal, you wouldn't have had a period between arrest and charge.

This proposal has been submitted after viewing by Enodia. I would like to thank everyone who helped with this proposal (ie everyone who posted on this thread), but in particular I would like to thank Komokom for providing a format, East Hackney and Ecopoeia for being pedants (every little bit helps) and Evil-Catzegovina for the debate.

Komokom would like to thank Enn for his/her (Meaning Enn himself, Stephanie and Hannah :wink: ) thanks in themself, and would like to give credit also to he thinks it was Sophista, who diddled up the original format design. He (The Rep of Komokom), simple re-wordi-fied it a tad to better suit the legal prose expectations of the voting masses.

I now proceed to join all others here to applaud Enn for their effort, may it be blessed by votes to sit in splendor with all other passed proposals, well, most of them, :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

o~ BUMP ~o

9 down, 141 to go.

o~ BUMP ~o

o~ Bump overnight for good luck ~o

I am in support of this proposal with a single reservation. I'm concrened about how it owuld affect my legal system. LEt me explain and perhaps hte honarable patron could explain.

In my nation anyone suspected of a capital offence is arrested and brought before a court for a formal filing of charges with the court and referal to the grand jury and remanded into custody. However, there are no official charges yet as official charges are made by our grand jury.

The person is held in police custody until the grand jury heres the case and chooses to charge or demand relase. However, under our constitutional law the grand jury may take a full elvish week to hear the case and another 2 days to reach decision.

We realize htis is horridly copmlicated but that is why we asked since to us the implications are not immently clear to us. Does the formal filing of charges immediately upon arrest satisfy your proposal or do I have to accelerate the grand jury process?

~His Provisionally Elected Highness James the Sorta-elven
Premeir of Caras Galadon

I do not see a problem with your legal system, the formal filing of charges within 24 hours is all that is required.

34 down, 114 to go. It won't happen now, but I'll re-submit soon.

o~ BUMP ~o
33, 119 needed. I've pretty much given up on this attempt, unless there is a sudden rush of support for this proposal from UN delegates.

:crosses fingers, toes, eyes: