NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I'm sure many of you thought that I was done with this proposal. Too bad. I have noticed many calls for 'sensible' proposals, and have remembered that many in the past called this a sensible proposal. So, here goes:
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.

So, what do you think? Should I re-enter the competitive world of proposals and resolutions, or should this just stay on the sidelines?

As with the previous attempts, I offer my support for this proposal, unworthy as that support may prove to be.

Allowing a government to arrest and hold citizens as prisoners without any criminal charge against them is quite dangerous to the cause of freedom; the right of habeas corpus is among the most critical of human rights, in my opinion -- without it, all others may prove meaningless. One of my quiet goals in the NSUN has always been to obtain recognition and protection of certain central human rights, and this is one of those rights.

Yes, I'm sure many of you thought that I was done with this proposal. Too bad. I have noticed many calls for 'sensible' proposals, and have remembered that many in the past called this a sensible proposal. So, here goes:
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.

So, what do you think? Should I re-enter the competitive world of proposals and resolutions, or should this just stay on the sidelines?

The proposal, as quoted above, is legal under NationStates rules. You may submit this to the UN at your lesiure.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Thanks, Cog, for the official declaration.

I'm still not sure whether I should go for this again. It came close to reaching quorum twice, but that was some time ago.

BUMP

I think I'll submit tomorrow afternoon. I can campaign on Monday, and we'll see how things progress from there.

Keep trying! My proposals were pretty crazy and horribly disliked by those in the Forum but eventually I gained the support of many delegates and got one passed. You can count on my support.

Do it again! I would support again, but I'm no longer my region's delegate, so I can only offer luck.

600th post!

Ditto on the luck. I don't think my regional delegate would support a proposal like this…

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

You shall have my support for your proposal.

I would defintily support this resolution. I'd like to offer my assistance however I could. However, I must ask if law enforcement could investigate on right of due cause, I think, such as witnessing an act of crime. Or would that be affected at all? And also, would this affect martial law? Or war crime?

Signed,
Dictator LG

I will also support your proposal. And try, not very hard, to bolster support for your proposal.

If it makes it past quarum, I would vote for it. It is certainly not contrary to the rights and laws in the Republic.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Although I understand the founding principles of Habeas Corpus, I do not believe that it is one that should be in today's law.
The problem arises with the fact that, some people should be brought into custody if there is strong suspicion against them. After all, if the person truly is guilty and is left alone, that person could wreak more havok amongst the community.
This would endanger the lives of my countrymen. I couldn't allow it.

Ditto on the luck. I don't think my regional delegate would support a proposal like this…
Hmm... You might be on to something there...

Although I understand the founding principles of Habeas Corpus, I do not believe that it is one that should be in today's law.
The problem arises with the fact that, some people should be brought into custody if there is strong suspicion against them. After all, if the person truly is guilty and is left alone, that person could wreak more havok amongst the community.
This would endanger the lives of my countrymen. I couldn't allow it.
This is where we run into problems. I personally have the view that it is better for many guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly imprisoned. In any case, if there is evidence, then charge the person.

I would defintily support this resolution. I'd like to offer my assistance however I could. However, I must ask if law enforcement could investigate on right of due cause, I think, such as witnessing an act of crime. Or would that be affected at all? And also, would this affect martial law? Or war crime?
Okay.

1. This does not affect law enforcement agencies in any way other than adding the requirement that any person they have arrested must be charged. Investigation of people who have not been charged should still be carried out as per national laws.
2. Martial Law... I probably wouldn't be the first to admit that I don't quite understand what martial law is. So I don't feel qualified to answer this question at this time.
3. War crimes... If the person is arrested as a prisoner of war, then they are treated as per the Wolfish Convention on PoWs. If the person is arrested, but not as a PoW, then I see no reason for any seperate ruling on War Crimes.

This has now been submitted, approve at your leisure. Or preferably, approve soon, and ask other people to approve.

After one night, has 15, needs more than 100. Methinks I'll be needing to do some campaigning today.

What, no discussion? You all think that it's a good idea? That's great! Then why hasn't this been approved by most of you yet?

Ahem

2. Martial Law... I probably wouldn't be the first to admit that I don't quite understand what martial law is. So I don't feel qualified to answer this question at this time.


To define it in legalise it's a suspension of civil authority, and a expansion of military jurisdiction. In english, it's means all authority is passed from the normal forms of law enforcement (police/sheriffs/etc) to a conveined military authority. Taking over the normal operations of the police, courts, etc. (the normal court system is replaced with admiralty courts, also from hense generally the national flag in the court room is replaced by a gold-fringed one, the international signal of admiralty) in effect changes the legal preceeding, within the scope of admiralty courts, all courts are conveined under a 3 panel judiciary composed of "flag" officers (Generals, Admirals, Field Marshals ), and all people charged are guilty till proven innocent. Also, within it's scope, the writ of Habeus Corpus is suspended, this is more due to the concept behind it. Within the scope of most nations the only lawful body with the power to suspend the writ is the legislature, and the only body that can declare martial law is also the legislature.

Generally the principle of martial law is only implemented when a situation of rebellion or invasion is occuring. It also makes the civilian populace subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). In any case, it's an out of the normal scope of things implimentation of law under a worse case senario internal problem is happening. Habeus Corpus, and the like are good for peacetime, but in invasion and rebellion situations, it becomes a crutch. Things happen quite differently, trials are quick, execution is swift, and by firing squad. And everyone is under hyper-tight control by home land military forces. It's more or less a homeland internal war.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Thankyou, Tekania. On the basis of this information, I would say that Habeas Corpus would be suspended during times of martial law.

*politely clear throat*

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I won't get to re-submit this for quite some time, so this is going on the backburner again.