NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Does anyone have any problems with this as it is? And no, I am not going to make changes regarding terrorist suspects.

Tarazania sees no problems with the proposal as drafted.

( ( ( AND THE CROWD GOES WILD ) ) )

:D

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister For Stuff.

The Democratic Republic of Cyclopea, as a staunch defender of civil liberties and a nation that pursues to promote the recognition of these fundamental ideas throughout the world, wholeheartedly endorses this proposal.

Peter Rhodes
Ambassador to United Nations
The Democratic Republic of Cylopea

Boogidyloo would like to make a suggestion, which may be totally off base, but...we feel that this is an extremely worthwhile proposal and that it is entirely possible that the reason that it continues to not reach quorum is that delegates see a phrase in the title (habeus corpus) that they do not know the meaning of and simply do not read it. It is our thought that you may want to try a title along the general lines of "freedom from unjust detention" in order to catch the "vocabulary of a sixth grader" crowd.

2 cents etc.

Henrietta Chapman
Minister of Frogs
Boogidyloo

Boobidyloo: I admit that you do have a point there. However, I feel that if something cannot be campaigned for under its internationally recognised name, then why bother. In any case, the results for each submission have increased dramatically:

1st time: 37 endorsements.
2nd: 86 (or so)
3rd: 107 (or thereabouts).

For that reason, and because Habeas Corpus is defined within the proposal, I will keep the name.

The delegates of Exham endorse this proposition, OOHHH YEEAAH.

We continue to consider this proposal a basic civil rights requirement of any civilised nation, and wholeheartedly support it.

We still have issues with it.... as the concept... while lovely theoretically and an ideal during peace.. would hinder various nations defenses in times of crisis. Without a rider to suspend habeas corpus during times of national crisis, we cannot support this.

If you were to ever add a waiver for times of national crisis... we would support it

As a military nation, the Terran Assemblage supports.

We still have issues with it.... as the concept... while lovely theoretically and an ideal during peace.. would hinder various nations defenses in times of crisis. Without a rider to suspend habeas corpus during times of national crisis, we cannot support this.

If you were to ever add a waiver for times of national crisis... we would support it

What? Like when "Marshal Law" or similar is declared by the governing body of the time? Hmmm, a little risky, then the government that disagreed with it could declare a constant state of Marshal Law. And by the by, not every-body takes kindly to riders... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

Also, should your nation be in a state of war, psychotropics, the Wolfish Convention on PoWs will apply.

We still have issues with it.... as the concept... while lovely theoretically and an ideal during peace.. would hinder various nations defenses in times of crisis. Without a rider to suspend habeas corpus during times of national crisis, we cannot support this.

If you were to ever add a waiver for times of national crisis... we would support it

What? Like when "Marshal Law" or similar is declared by the governing body of the time? Hmmm, a little risky, then the government that disagreed with it could declare a constant state of Marshal Law. And by the by, not every-body takes kindly to riders... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

Then we will oppose

very nice. How can it fail? But then again odd things happen...The Freedom of Choice got through :shock:

Now, now, don't knock Freedom of Choice, it has some interesting... capabilities of which may be of use in future circumstances, but that is in the future...

Now I am think Habeas Corpus will pass this time, or the next, the climb in approval under its current name is clear evidence of this. It is a maximum of three submitions away from entry into quorum county. :wink:

I've been proud to offer what support, technical and morale I could in this venture, and I whole-heartedly think it shines brightlly under the mandate of the U.N.

"To make the world a better place, one resolution at a time."

And failing that, is a bloody well written and thought out proposal whom the writter of put a bloody great load of effort in compared to most. :)

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

My nation supports this proposal. We feel that holding someone without a charge is illegal. My nation also supports the rules set by the 'Fair Trial' resolution.

The part I enjoy the most is not having to ever start a trial. Neither resolution calls for the trial to begin. So a criminal can be held, with a charge, waiting for a "fair trial" that never begins.

Unfortunatly, you are attempting to re-write nation's laws with this proposal. Not all Nations practice this... so you'll force them to?
Hey why not write a resolution saying that all nations must have a King or Queen with supreme government power to remove all red tape and to speed up laws being passed. You could also pass a resolution saying that all media cannot print/spread any news that embarresses the government.

If you re-define it to only apply to visitors to that nation then Maybe I'll support it.

Unfortunatly, you are attempting to re-write nation's laws with this proposal. Not all Nations practice this... so you'll force them to?

Well, yes, that's exactly what we're trying to do. And why not? The UN has already decided collectively that the right to a fair trial is a basic human right which overrides national sovereignty.

All this resolution will do is ensure that said fair trial must come in a timely fashion.

Hey why not write a resolution saying that all nations must have a King or Queen with supreme government power to remove all red tape and to speed up laws being passed. You could also pass a resolution saying that all media cannot print/spread any news that embarresses the government.

What on earth does this have to do with anything?

What does it have to do with anything? Simple, You just admitted you are re-writing laws and criminal process for individual natons, So why stop there. the UN already decieded that Every Nation in the UN has to be Democratic, thus every Issue has to be Dismissed and everything has to be legalized (Right to Choose: you cannot deny your citizens the right to choose as long as no harm, physical or otherwise occurs. So any legisations will deny the opposing side their choice on how to live.) Why not take the mask of the UN and make it honest. The UN is Big Brother! It watches all the member nations, tells them how to think, what to teach, how to feel. C'mon, be honest guys, change the name of the United Nations to False Democracies Only (false after all since all Members are "forced" to comply with all resolutions.) Make one UN Currency to be used by all Member Nations.

Remember. In the UN, It's the LETTER of the Law that is followed, because everything else can be re-interpreted.

What does it have to do with anything? Simple, You just admitted you are re-writing laws and criminal process for individual natons, So why stop there. the UN already decieded that Every Nation in the UN has to be Democratic

Still don't see the relevance. First off, every nation's right to choose their own type of government and economy is protected by the Rights and Duties resolution. Second, criminal process is nothing to do with electoral systems.

Third, you're comparing a very moderate UN intervention with an extreme one and saying either that they're the same or that the one will inevitably lead to the other, I'm not sure which. By that token, the UN should do nothing at all... which we're sure some nations would like, but we feel would destroy the point of the whole exercise.

Ahh, so the little message sent to all member nations stating they will be "forced to comply" is just fluff and to be ignored... so sorry, I'm such a NooB.

Ahh, so the little message sent to all member nations stating they will be "forced to comply" is just fluff and to be ignored... so sorry, I'm such a NooB.

Err... I have even less idea about what that has to do with what we were discussing. Yes, you have to comply with UN resolutions. No, the UN is not about to outlaw every government form except democracy, nor has it done so. No, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the habeas corpus proposal.

Thankyou East Hackeny for being around at the moment.

This proposal is intended to bridge the gap between a person being arrested and the "Definition of Fair Trial" resolution kicking in. I really don't see what that has to do with political systems. I believe that Habeas Corpus is a basic human right, and that is why I am proposing this.

In any case, yes, every resolution is a rewrite in national laws. That's the way this UN works. It's the way this UN has always worked, unless there has been some very major change in the game mechanics I am not aware of.

I cleared this with Enodia before the first submission, so there shouldn't be any problems in that department. I will submit tomorrow, unless there are problems with this.

You still have our support.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Oggidad stands firmly behind this ancient and just principle. Perhaps you could extend this and produce a magna carta bill, only this time it would be democratic and wouldn't need a vast body of lords and knights to force the king to sign it. :)

Okay, I won't be submitting right now. One of my endorsers has decided to protest the Blood Bank resolution by withdrawing from the UN until it passes. When he rejoins, I will have the endorsement again.

BUMP

Ok, I've been away most of the past two days. So I'll submit now.

Has been submitted. Fourth time lucky. Hope it makes it this time.

We would like to help promote this by contacting delegates; telegram if you agree, Enn.

Hurrah! Overnight it already has 21 endorsements!

We've dutifully prodded our delegate.

Okay, I won't be submitting right now. One of my endorsers has decided to protest the Blood Bank resolution by withdrawing from the UN until it passes. When he rejoins, I will have the endorsement again.

Meep, guilty as charged. :)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Has forty. Needs more.

* Cracks whip at delegates !

^ _ ^

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

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.

Does anyone have any problems with this as it is? And no, I am not going to make changes regarding terrorist suspects.

It's too vague, and it doesn't really diferentiates Habeas Corpus from fair trail. The key in Habeas Corpus revolves around procedures and their effectiveness, it takes everything said in the general clauses of Fair Trail and creates an eficient mecanism to execute them.

I'm for Habeas Corpus, however in order to make your case better you should try to be detailed on this, and personally i think a 48 hour deadline is better.

* The Rep of Komokom watches as Enn develops a facial tick.

:D

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Argh, I had a nice reply ready to post hours ago, then the server went crazy, so I can't remember most of it.

Vacant Planets: Could you explain what you mean by 'vague'. I'm not trying to ignore what you are saying, it is just that I don't view this proposal as being vague.

As to the 24 hour deadline: I personally think charges should be filed immediately upon arrest. After all, if there is enough evidence to allow arrest, then charge the person.
I was then told by others that there should be some time between arrest and the deadline for the filing of charges. 24 hours was the limit of how far I could in good conscience extend this period (this was at the time of the first draft, about... 6 weeks ago, I think). So no, I won't budge on this, unless people ask me to lower the deadline.

So ... 23.5 could be inserted instead?

( J/K, J/K, J/K ! )

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS, engaging in a "stealth" BUMP by the looks of it.

Argh, I had a nice reply ready to post hours ago, then the server went crazy, so I can't remember most of it.

Vacant Planets: Could you explain what you mean by 'vague'. I'm not trying to ignore what you are saying, it is just that I don't view this proposal as being vague.

As to the 24 hour deadline: I personally think charges should be filed immediately upon arrest. After all, if there is enough evidence to allow arrest, then charge the person.
I was then told by others that there should be some time between arrest and the deadline for the filing of charges. 24 hours was the limit of how far I could in good conscience extend this period (this was at the time of the first draft, about... 6 weeks ago, I think). So no, I won't budge on this, unless people ask me to lower the deadline.

Well, vague is not really the word, it's more... incomplete. Habeas Corpus stands for a quicker process, correct procedure in all stances of justice, now you would have to express minimum procedure requirements for it's aplication.

Such as competent judges, deadline to initiate the Habeas Corpus, etc etc etc...

So I think you should elaborate it more before putting it foward. I could give more elbarote suggestions as soon as I have time if you want.

And about the 24 hour deadline in think it's too fast to have the distric attorney and the investigative forces to elaborate an effective case after an "in the scene" arrest, specially if you consider the bureaucracy involved in it. 48 hours is not too long, and neither too short.

Uh ... Vacant Planets, do you know exactly what Habeas Corpus is ?

I'd elaborate, but reality is intruding, my unfortunate social (grrr) obligations ...

- The Rep of Komokom.

Habeas Corpus literally means 'you have the body' in Latin. In Australian law, it is a legal writ that requires a person being held (the 'body') to stand trial. (Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English).

I am utilising this definition to draft this proposal. This is all that Habeas Corpus is.

In any case: Hurrah! 61 endorsements already, before I've done any personal campaigning!

The holy empire of Wadway votes against this resolution, for spiritual reasons...

"Spiritual reasons" ?

I'll read that as "Smoke screen till we come up with something"

As quite frankly, if your going to disagree with something, then try to at least give us a clear reason why. Saying the "spirits" told you is more likely to get you dragged into a mad house. :wink:

So yes, what are these spiritual reasons and why do they prevent you from agree-ing?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

The holy empire of Wadway votes against this resolution, for spiritual reasons...

That is the vaguest, stupidest and most pointless reason I have seen in all my time as a UN member. :roll:

( Ooc: LOL, that's what you get with religious dictatorships :D )

Wadway's spiritual council has decided to vote against this new resolution, because it is against some of Wadway's sacred laws. To change that, would be to anger god, which is something Wadway is not prepared to do.

The spiritual council has spoken, Wadway must respect their decision.

OOC:Argh, miscalculated the difference between Australian and American time. It has already finished.

IC:I will re-submit now. And begin campaigning immediately.

You know what, I will support this, but it violates choice of government style. Dictatorships will have a big problem with this. Soon, the UN will just be a club where everyone thinks alike.

I'm not going to change my principles to fit with other people.

I also feel that the argument thatthe UN will end up as a group of like-minded nations fails to hold water. There have been many resolutions in the past which people made dire warnings about ("Everyone will leave!"), which plainly and simply did not come true. Look at the UN at the moment - we have dictatorships, democracies, theocracies, hierocracies, monarchies and many other types of government. People tend to adapt to change.

I also don't actually see how this is bad for dictatorships - all it means is that anyone you hold must be charged within 24 hours of arrest, or set free. That doesn't prevent the government from arresting them with some dodgy charge, putting them on trial, and keeping them in prison for a very long period of time.

See, as Enn said, dictatorships will be fine.

* (Does a double take)

...

* (Shrugs)

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane is a dictatorship... and a religious one...

**Smirks at Rep. Wadway**

And we, still, fully endorse this proposal. If we wish to arrest someone, it will be no feat to rush them through our legal system and then let them serve their punishment.

Uh ... Vacant Planets, do you know exactly what Habeas Corpus is ?

I'd elaborate, but reality is intruding, my unfortunate social (grrr) obligations ...

- The Rep of Komokom.

It's my job to know that kind of stuff... so yeah :D

It just wouldn't be nice having this resolution for then being forced to make an amendment to it to cover it's blanks.

Habeas Corpus literally means 'you have the body' in Latin. In Australian law, it is a legal writ that requires a person being held (the 'body') to stand trial. (Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English).

I am utilising this definition to draft this proposal. This is all that Habeas Corpus is.
Vacant Planets: I am pointing out my definition of Habeas Corpus, as I posted earlier. If you have a different definition, then could you please post it so that we may compare and contrast.

I'd like to know the source too,

For exapmle my HSC Excel Text defines it as,

Habeas corpus: Literally, "to have the body"; a writ that prevents people being imprisoned without good reason.

Next please ?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

I'm not saying your definition is wrong, I'm saying it's too limitative. This is part of the act that created Habeas Corpus

Responding to abusive detention of persons without legal authority, public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act, which established a critical right that was later written into the Constitution for the United States.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Habeas Corpus Act
1679
An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.

WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.

II. For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; (2) be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority thereof. That whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed unto any sheriff or sheriffs, gaoler, minister or other person whatsoever, for any person in his or their custody, and the said writ shall be served upon the said officer, or left at the gaol or prison with any of the under-officers, under-keepers or deputy of the said officers or keepers, that the said officer or officers, his or their under-officers, under-keepers or deputies, shall within three days after the service thereof as aforesaid (unless the commitment aforesaid were for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment) upon payment or tender of the charges of bringing the said prisoner, to be ascertained by the judge or court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said writ, not exceeding twelve pence per mile, and upon security given by his own bond to pay the charges of carrying back the prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the court or judge to which he shall be brought according to the true intent of this present act, and that he will not make any escape by the way, make return of such writ; (3) and bring or cause to be brought the body of the party so committed or restrained, unto or before the lord chancellor, or lord keeper of the great seal of England for the time being, or the judges or barons of the said court from which the said writ shall issue, or unto and before such other person or persons before whom the said writ is made returnable, according to the command thereof; (4) and shall then likewise certify the true causes of his detainer or imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the distance of twenty miles from the place or places where such court or person is or shall be residing; and if beyond the distance of twenty miles, and not above one hundred miles, then within the space of ten days, and if beyond the distance of one hundred miles, then within the space of twenty days, after such delivery aforesaid, and not longer.

III. And to the intent that no sheriff, gaoler or other officer may pretend ignorance of the import of such writ. (2) be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all such writs shall be marked in this manner, Per statutum tricesimo primo Caroli secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the person that awards the same; (3) and if any person or persons shall be or stand committed or detained as aforesaid, for any crime, unless for felony or treason plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment, in the vacation-time, and out of term, it shall and may be lawful to and for the person or persons so committed or detained (other than persons convict or in execution of legal process) or any one on his or their behalf, to appeal or complain to the lord chancellor or lord keeper, or any one of his Majesty's justices, either of the one bench or of the other, or the barons of the exchequer of the degree of the coif; (4) and the said lord chancellor, lord keeper, justices or barons or any of them, upon view of the copy or copies of the warrant or warrants of commitment and detainer, or otherwise upon oath made that such copy or copies were denied to be given by such person or persons in whose custody the prisoner or prisoners is or are detained, are hereby authorized and required, upon request made in writing by such person or persons, or any on his, her, or their behalf, attested and subscribed by two witnesses who were present at the delivery of the same, to award and grant an habeas corpus under the seal of such court whereof he shall then be one of the judges, (5) to be directed to the officer or officers in whose custody the party so committed or detained shall be, returnable immediate before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper or such justice, baron or any other justice or baron of the degree of the coif of any of the said courts; (6) and upon service thereof as aforesaid, the officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or their deputy in whose custody the party is so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively before limited, bring such prisoner or prisoners before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justices, barons or one of them, before whom the said writ is made returnable, and in case of his absence before any other of them, with the return of such writ, and the true causes of the commitment and detainer; (7) and thereupon within two days after the party shall be brought before them, the said lord chancellor or lord keeper, or such justice or baron before whom the prisoner shall be brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said prisoner from his imprisonment, taking his or their recognizance, with one or more surety or sureties, in any sum according to their discretions, having regard to the quality of the prisoner and nature of the offense, for his or their appearance in the court of the King's bench the term following, or at the next assizes, sessions or general gaol-delivery of and for such county, city or place where the commitment was, or where the offense was committed, or in such other court where the said offense is properly cognizable, as the case shall require, and then shall certify the said writ with the return thereof, and the said recognizance or recognizances unto the said court where such appearance is to be made; (8) unless it shall appear unto the said lord chancellor or lord keeper or justice or justices, or baron or barons, that the party so committed is detained upon a legal process, order or warrant, out of some court that hath jurisdiction of criminal matters, or by some warrant signed and sealed with the hand and seal of any of the said justices or barons, or some justice or justices of the peace, for such matters or offenses for the which by the law the prisoner is not bailable. [...]


***********
And many of the reulings in the act have evolved in time...

Like I said, the resolution needs to adress a lot of details regarding Habeas Corpus before it can be considered effective. I can look for some international treaties and legislation involving habeas corpus if you are interested

I really, really hope that the change to Jolt happens quickly, so I don't keep on losing my posts. Okay.

As I (and I am sure many others) find it difficult to isolate specific details in large chunks of text, could you point out exactly what in your research makes Habeas Corpus more than the right to not be held without charge. I do not see any need to go into fine detail about the exact manner of this right being upheld.

Congrats on the research, but I can't see exactly what needs to be done. Humour me, and point out your argument.

BUMP.

over halfway. I think I will submit only one more time. If it doesn't make it, then someone else can try to get this through if they so wish.