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 48 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws. This period does not apply to any time when the judicial authorities are not active, such as weekends or national holidays. 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 the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs and not Habeas Corpus shall apply to his or her treatment. Furthermore, be it hereby resolved that any person who is not detained as a prisoner of war is entitled to Habeas Corpus.
I'm thinking of submitting this again on Wednesday, and am putting it up now for people to look over until then. Are there any objections to this proposal as it is?
[Amendment]Edited with _Myopia_'s suggestion.
[Amendment]Edited with Frisbeeteria's suggestion.
[Amendment]Edited (again) with Kelssek's suggestion.

So a prisoner of war has to be charged with a crime in order to be held? That is how your last paragraph reads to me.

So a prisoner of war has to be charged with a crime in order to be held? That is how your last paragraph reads to me.
Wolfish Convention on POW

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Wolfish
Description: Wolfish Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. Article 2 The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of occupation, even if the occupation meets with no armed resistance. The present Convention shall apply to the prisoners from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Article 3 The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which impartial humanitarian organization may undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief. Article 4 Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. Article 5 Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. Article 6 The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health. Article 7 Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria. Article 8 Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. Article 9 Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

Votes For: 9735

Votes Against: 2235

Implemented: Wed Sep 17 2003
Nothing in the Wolfish Convention on POW refers to detainees having charges laid against them.

The paragraph in the Habeas Corpus proposal is intended to ensure that the Wolfish Convention remains in effect.
If a person is detained as a prisoner of war, then the Wolfish Convention is in force, not Habeas Corpus.

But you do raise a good point. I will amend Habeas Corpus to better reflect my intentions.

How about saying this:

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 the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs and not Habeas Corpus shall apply to his or her treatment.

That's a very clear amendment :)

Thanks for that _Myopia_. Much clearer than what I had.

Seems to me that it would interfere with a government's right to treat criminals as it sees fit.

Axis Nova: This proposal is not about how criminals are treated. As far as I can recall, there are no resolutions that have any effect on how proven criminals are treated, other than that they cannot be sold as slaves (End Slavery) and that they cannot be subjected to torture or cruel and unusual punishments(END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS).

Habeas Corpus only affects those who have been arrested, who are already entitled to a presumption of innocence according to the Definition of 'Fair Trial' resolution implemented on Saturday February 14 2004.

In my opinion, Habeas Corpus is a fundamental human right, and a founding principal of law. That is why this is being written as a proposal rather than as a national issue.

Aren't we already doing that in the UN? I can think of three or four resolutions without looking at the history page that interfere with a nation's right to mishandle criminals: Fair Trial, Ending Barbaric Punishments, that one that amended the Fair Trial (but really didn't), etc.

Habeus Corpus prevents the government from holding prisoners without charge or notification. Frisbeeteria finds this completely reasonable. We don't want Frisbeeterian tourists held in foreign jails without knowing why or how they're treated. Show us the body!

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

As an aside, Frisbeeteria stands firmly AGAINST exempting military POWs from the Habeus Corpus statues. As the Wolfish Convention, sections 2 and 3, permit and require that all POWs be accessible to humanitarian representatives, we accept this limitiation in the otherwise fine proposal.

We stand in FERVENT OPPOSTION to anyone who attempts to sidestep Wolfish by declaring would-be POWs as 'Enemy Combatants'. We find this sort of semantic rules-lawyering reprehensible and not worthy of the international community. Any nation using such tactics will incur the emnity of Frisbeeteria and a demand for the immediate release and/or repatriation of all such foreign nationals.

We stand in FERVENT OPPOSTION to anyone who attempts to sidestep Wolfish by declaring would-be POWs as 'Enemy Combatants'. We find this sort of semantic rules-lawyering reprehensible and not worthy of the international community. Any nation using such tactics will incur the emnity of Frisbeeteria and a demand for the immediate release and/or repatriation of all such foreign nationals.
As I understand it, anyone being held who was not recognised as a prisoner of war would be held as per Definition of 'Fair Trial', and hopefully Habeas Corpus.

The reason for the exception for PoWs was simply because the law as regarding PoWs was already well established by the Wolfish Convention. I did not wish Habeas Corpus to be seen as a repeal of Wolfish, and as such the exception was made.

And Frisbeeteria's outrage was not directed at the fine nation of Enn, but rather the somewhat less-than-fine nation from whence I'm currently reporting. My apologies to you for letting it Gitmo under my skin.

Edit: On reflection, why not add language to that effect to the proposal?

Use of alternate terms such as 'Enemy Combatant' to avoid either Wolfish or Habeus Corpus is expressly prohibited. If prisoners are not covered under Wolfish, they must be covered under Habeus Corpus.

I would suggest that POWs be exempt from the right to see a lawyer. If every POW taken prisoner in a war were to demand legal representation all at once, then that would bring that country's judicidal system to a screeching halt.

This is also why I do not support giving these rights to terrorists.

(sorry I'm a bit off topic here XP)

I would suggest that POWs be exempt from the right to see a lawyer. If every POW taken prisoner in a war were to demand legal representation all at once, then that would bring that country's judicidal system to a screeching halt.

This is also why I do not support giving these rights to terrorists.

(sorry I'm a bit off topic here XP)
If it is about PoWs, then take it up with the Wolfish Convention. If it is about legal representation, take it up with the Definition of 'Fair Trial' resolution. Neither of those are being addressed in Habeas Corpus, so yes, it is off topic.

Frisbeeteria: Another fine suggestion! Will make changes to that effect. Does seem surprising that these are only picked up now, but that's the way it is.

Ah well. Looks good now.

How about an exception for terroristic activities? While I can understand giving so-called "rights" to common criminals, but why would you give such protections to those who which to harm or poison the populations of the nations they are supposedly part of? Those who are accused of terroristic acts as defined by the governments of their nations should be stripped of their citizenship and have their behavior stopped and corrected by any means necessary.

Surely we don't want terrorists (as defined by each of our governments) to go free?

Short answer : No. Well, most likely no.

Those who are accused of terroristic acts as defined by the governments of their nations should be stripped of their citizenship and have their behavior stopped and corrected by any means necessary.

Surely we don't want terrorists (as defined by each of our governments) to go free?Hel-lo...the principle of habeas corpus says that the government can't hold you without charging you with a crime. An accusation of terrorist acts counds as charging with a crime.

Surely we don't want terrorists (as defined by each of our governments) to go free?
Therein lies the problem. I'm sorry, but I don't want to give ANY government the power to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. All someone has to do under such an exclusion is simply define anyone they don't like as 'terrorist', and they have no rights.

All you have to do in such a situation is charge them or declare them POWs. Either way, they continue to be held. If the charges are just, they can be summarily handled as that nation handles such criminals. If not, they deserve to go free as much as any other innocent.

What is the point of fighting for freedom if you take away those freedoms as part of the fight?

This is also why I do not support giving these rights to terrorists

Who are you to say if they're terrorists or not unless the person has been convicted in a court of law? If you've got a strong enough case, prosecute them. If not, they should go free. A person charged with terrorism should have the same rights as a person charged with assault, who should have the same rights as a person charged with murder, who should have the same rights as a person charged with carrying an ice cream cone in his back pocket on a Sunday.

About the resolution, the last bit dealing with the "enemy combatant" is a little cumbersome and provides a nice loophole for someone with a thesaurus. I suggest:

"Furthermore, be it hereby resolved that any person who is not detained as a prisoner of war is entitled to Habeas Corpus"

That removes any of the weird labellings, because it clearly says if a person isn't a POW, they get habeas corpus.

"Furthermore, be it hereby resolved that any person who is not detained as a prisoner of war is entitled to Habeas Corpus"
Agreed.

Therein lies the problem. I'm sorry, but I don't want to give ANY government the power to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. All someone has to do under such an exclusion is simply define anyone they don't like as 'terrorist', and they have no rights.

Why not? The government is the custodian of their citizens. And as such has the power to make hard decisions. That includes holding people who may present a danger based in evidence that normally might not uphold a conviction. Sometimes intelligence on a planned activity can be far better than the evidence that can support a court case. And sometimes even revealing that someone is in custody can cause problems and even trigger unfortunate results.

There are times when forceful interrogation will save lives over just bringing in a lawyer. Especially when they may have knowledge of upcoming events.

What is the point of fighting for freedom if you take away those freedoms as part of the fight?

That assumes your government places a high premium on "freedom." Not every government does and not every government should. Some citizens are fortunate enough to live under governments that place a far higher value on order and on making sure they do what is right.

Surely those citizens shouldnt be punished for living in nations that keep them safe and keep them just?

I'd think living in an authoritarian regime which doesn't have respect for civil rights would be punishment enough.

But that's besides the point, why are you against habeas corpus? If you can prove a case against them, then do it. They go into jail, and you can still interrogate them. Habeas corpus only means you have to charge them with a crime and bring them to trial within a certain amount of time. It doesn't mean you can't interrogate them.

There are times when forceful interrogation will save lives over just bringing in a lawyer. Especially when they may have knowledge of upcoming events.

That's based on an assumption of guilt, and you don't take into account the fact that the person may not know anything. You don't take into account that not everyone arrested is guilty.

The other problem is that when you do this, you have a problem. An innocent man will say anything just to be let go, while a guilty man, dedicated to his cause, refuses to say anything, no matter what you threaten.

Say the FBI picks up an innocent man and interrogates him, threatening to jail him if he didn't cooperate. Convinced that the man is a terrorist, they use all kinds of interrogation tactics on him until the man, stressed out and tired, just makes up something so they'll let him go. He says that his terrorist network is going to strike the Sears Tower with a truck bomb. Security at the Sears Tower is boosted. Road checkpoints are set up. The entire civil defence force is focused on preventing an attack on the Sears Tower. Meanwhile, because everyone is looking out for trucks full of explosives, Al-Qaeda operatives slip past security and set off a bomb in Los Angeles airport. Do you see the danger here?

Turning to more everyday crimes, if you don't respect civil rights, you will end up with a lot of innocent people in jail. How? If you don't require that everyone must be brought to trial within a day or so, the police can detain people indefinitely. They may catch an innocent person and not let him go until he confesses (as a side note, even with habeas corpus, some police departments are known to use pressure tactics to obtain the same effect). Then he is convicted on that confession. Meanwhile, the guilty man is still out on the streets. How is your nation more safe?

As several people have rightly judged, I do not support an amendment excluding Habeas Corpus for those charged with terrorism.

I believe that every person is entitled to a basic right to a presumption of innocence, regardless of what they are charged with. I believe that Habeas Corpus is a significant part of that right.

As such, I do not support anything that would remove that right from any person.

If the debate continues into tomorrow afternoon, then I will hold off submitting, so that any changes to the proposal that arise from this debate may be taken note of.

Why not? The government is the custodian of their citizens.
Oh, no no no no ...

Government is not the custodian of MY citizens. Government is the SERVANT of the citizens. As libertarians, we don't hand over our moral authority to some faceless and nameless bureaucrat.

You can't have human rights without taking human responsibilities. I have the right to freedom of thought and freedom of movement, so I must take the responsibility to protect the freedom of thought and movement of others. Criminals and terrorists may work against those freedoms, but until they are proven guilty, they have exactly the same rights as the rest of us.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". - Benjamin Franklin,

You can't have human rights without taking human responsibilities.
Let me just cut off the next argument before somebody tries to make it.

No, the government didn't give you those human rights. The government recognized those rights. They are inherent to the human condition, and no government anywhere can grant them or take them away. Oh sure, they can curtail them. In some cases they do so because we gave them the right, in others because they are sitting behind a tank turret and are forceably taking them.

You might have chosen your government (democracy), accepted it by acquiescence (communism), or had it forced upon you (tyranny). Either way, the government is your servant, not your parent or master. It may not always seem that way, but it must serve you in some way or be overthrown.

Incidentally, this argument is irrelevant for UN members. You already don't have the right to restrict movement, use torture, or delay a trial ... and reciprocity applies to all UN nations. Have a close look at the following resolutions Fair trial End slavery Citizen Rule Required The Universal Bill of Rights (esp Article 4, 6, and 7) Due Process End Barbaric Punishments Definition of 'Fair Trial' Rights and Duties of UN States (Article 11 especially) and of course Wolfish Convention on POW

I've decided to hold this over until tomorrow evening, as I would be better able to personally raise support for this going into the weekend.

This has just been submitted. Go you good thing go!

Any help with campaigning for this proposal would, as always, be appreciated.

This has just been submitted. Go you good thing go!

Any help with campaigning for this proposal would, as always, be appreciated.
You made a timing error, Enn. You submitted this about 3 hours before update. The proposal will langish in the back pages of that day's submissions and will only be up for a fraction over three days.

Next time, submit this after noon GMT. You'll get your full four days for approvals.

Oh, no no no no ...
As libertarians, we don't hand over our moral authority to some faceless and nameless bureaucrat.

You're libertarians. And we're theocrats. The question is not how a resolution can best apply to a particular nation's political system but how it can best apply to all nations and their unique requirements.

No, the government didn't give you those human rights. The government recognized those rights. They are inherent to the human condition, and no government anywhere can grant them or take them away.

A matter of philosophy. We believe certain responsibilities are given on all people by their creator and it is the responsibility of any just government to make sure they live up to them. The idea that a citizen has the "right" to do something "wrong" is foreign to us.

Incidentally, this argument is irrelevant for UN members. You already don't have the right to restrict movement, use torture, or delay a trial ... Those rights are guaranteed of course. Luckily except for a few mentally ill individuals citizens tend to voluntarily waive their rights and submit themselves to the private religious courts rather than the civil and criminal courts that deal with such antiquated issues.


But the issue I'm pressing is not the larger philosophical one that divides us but something more concrete. Imminent intelligence of a catastrophic activity is NOT the same thing as criminal evidence. Sometimes secrecy can be an issue. And sometimes time is needed to persuade someone to cooperate to save lives.

The issue isnt one of legalities. Since the detainee isnt yet on trial. Just whether they are circumstances where the immediate application of the legal system may contradict the public good of taking a public danger off the streets.

If you know someone is associated with terrorists and MAY himself be a suicide bomber.. there might be value at least on a short term basis of taking him off the street immediately rather than waiting until enough evidence has accumulated to get a criminal conviction. Especially since by that time it may very well be too late.

You're libertarians. And we're theocrats. The question is not how a resolution can best apply to a particular nation's political system but how it can best apply to all nations and their unique requirements.
Then there is only one way to settle this. Put the matter to a vote. If approved, it affects us all equally, and if not, life goes on.

Emasculating the very concept of Habeus Corpus by building in a workaround called 'terrorism' is pointless. If it fails to pass, I'll accept that the word has been spoken. But I won't stand idly by while someone adds language that guts the intent.

I agree with that and it is very well written. You get my vote.

Grr... don't like the way this forum likes to swallow threads, necessitating a search for your own topics.

Anyway, currently on about 33 approvals, needs 100-odd. Did a fair bit of telegram campaigning myself today, so hopefully it'll pay off.

Has 62, needs 74.

Seems to me that it would interfere with a government's right to treat criminals as it sees fit.

If one has not been charged with a "Crime" they are not a "criminal", merely a detainee... so this in no way effects how one nation treats their "criminals" merely limiting how long you can "detain" persons without officially charging them (48 hours).

Habeus Corpus is necessary in all circumstances... regardless what act they are assumed to have committed.... The logical argument that it can be removed for any crime (terrorism, murder, or what not) under the basis of supposed "protection" of the people, is not a argument of logic, but rather of falicy. For, if then, people can be detained indefinitely for "accusations" of terrorism, then the people (who you claim to be protecting) are not being protected, and you yourself have become the terrorist. Given the fact that they can then be "detained" and "interrogated" at any time, on the flimsiest of evidence... So none of them are "safe" and "secure" any longer.... rather the terrorist has become the government in an attempt to fight "terrorism".

Has 73, needs 63.

Another strong rebuttal of the 'terrorists don't deserve human rights' argument, for which I thank you, Tekania.

Habeas Corpus

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Enn
...
Approvals: 138

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
At last! Congratulations, Enn. Now to get this thing passed...

Hurrah! I really can't believe that this has finally happened! After about 4 months, countless submissions, numerous rewrites, Habeas Corpus is finally to be voted upon by the general body of the UN.

Thankyou to everyone who has helped in this endeavour. With luck, this will pass, and I sincerely hope that the NS world becomes a better place.

* The Rep of Komokom stands thumping a frying-pan gently into the open palm of his other hand, and mutters to the general U.N. populance :

" It had BETTER ... Capeesh ? "

* ;)

I am delighted to see this proposal finally hit the floor. My sincere congratulations to the people of Enn.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Habeus Corpus is necessary in all circumstances... regardless what act they are assumed to have committed.... The logical argument that it can be removed for any crime (terrorism, murder, or what not) under the basis of supposed "protection" of the people, is not a argument of logic, but rather of falicy. For, if then, people can be detained indefinitely for "accusations" of terrorism, then the people (who you claim to be protecting) are not being protected, and you yourself have become the terrorist. Given the fact that they can then be "detained" and "interrogated" at any time, on the flimsiest of evidence... So none of them are "safe" and "secure" any longer.... rather the terrorist has become the government in an attempt to fight "terrorism".What if you need to hold a terrorist for longer while you investigate further? Under this bill you would have to release them, giving them time to warn their comrades of the state operation.

Simple. You arrest them, because you do clearly consider them to be a suspect in a crime. Habeus Corpus prevents you from holding a person indefinitely without charging him of a crime. I believe the Latin translates as something like "There must be a body" or something similar - meaning you cannot just simply "disappear" someone.

At last :D Best of luck!

Many congratulations do we bring to the fair people of Enn. Finally this important and vital piece of legislation is on the floor. I do beleive it will get passed since undoubtably the UN has good sense in these matters.


On another note, Komokom, you seen Galdago lately... the UNCIAT hasn't posted since July yunno...


HPEH James the Sorta-Elven
Premier and Delegate #1
La Commonwealth Socialiste de Caras Galadon

What if you need to hold a terrorist for longer while you investigate further? Under this bill you would have to release them, giving them time to warn their comrades of the state operation.

If you need to hold someone, accused of a crime, longer, then you CHARGE them for the crime and continue the investigation....... Is it all that hard? Habeus Corpus merely means you need to ARRAIGN the person, and charge them in court with an OFFICIAL crime, within 48 hours of their "arrest" or "detention". It doesn't mean your investigative work is over with.

Sorry if I have no sympathy for those opposed, but IMO, if you need to arbitrarily lock your people up, with no charge, to maintain order, you have no reason to exist as a government... And I refuse to recognize your rights to exist as a government.... your people would be better off hanging your silly... and implacing a government of their own.

And that's not to mention that detaining a suspected terrorist to begin with is already in and of itself a warning to his or her accomplices, should any exist. I fail to see how any argument to detain the suspect without charge holds any merit whatsoever; the argument's very reason for existing works against the argument.

If you know someone is associated with terrorists and MAY himself be a suicide bomber.. there might be value at least on a short term basis of taking him off the street immediately rather than waiting until enough evidence has accumulated to get a criminal conviction. Especially since by that time it may very well be too late.
There is nothing in Habeus Corpus that prevents you from charging, and holding, under the charge of Criminal Conspiracy. Your nation has the right and the ability to define that in such a way as to prevent such potential criminals from getting out immediately.

There is also nothing in Habeus Corpus that requires you to publically announce a given arrest or present it to the news media. What it does require is for the accused to have access to their rights under international law.

If we arrest a suspected terrorist on one of our military installations, they are arrested under military jurisdiction, and they are assigned a military defense lawyer. That advocate will work within the law to find best defense for the accused. If there are security implications, their names aren't announced to the world at large, nor do they have immediate access to a lawyer of their choosing. What they do have is the same opportunity as the prosecution to begin preparing their case within the bounds of the legal system.

Nothing in Habeus Corpus gives defendants automatic access to F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochrane. Nowhere does it say we must release their name to CNN. Last time I looked, there wasn't an International Freedom of Information Act. Lots of nations observe them, but it's not a requirement.

Granting Habeus Corpus doesn't give carte blanche to terrorists. It gives legal rights to the falsely accused, as it does to everyone else.

If you need to hold someone, accused of a crime, longer, then you CHARGE them for the crime and continue the investigation.

My government has voted in favour, and I've also noticed support for this proposal in a few of the regional debates currently going on.

There is nothing in Habeus Corpus that prevents you from charging, and holding, under the charge of Criminal Conspiracy. Your nation has the right and the ability to define that in such a way as to prevent such potential criminals from getting out immediately.

Given this will probably pass that is what most nations will have to end up doing. Making one part of their laws more expansive to get around these unnecesary restrictions. Conspiracy becomes vague association so that credible (and immediately relevant) but not necessarily reliable intelligence can be applied to an arena that it may not fit.

All because a security detention can not be called by it's proper name. We view it as silly internal interference.

Judicial systems don't exist to protect themselves, they exist to protect the people. If you have to expand your laws in order to provide your people with the most basic of protections against baseless detainment, your judicial system was already a failure.

If you need to hold someone, accused of a crime, longer, then you CHARGE them for the crime and continue the investigation....... Is it all that hard? Habeus Corpus merely means you need to ARRAIGN the person, and charge them in court with an OFFICIAL crime, within 48 hours of their "arrest" or "detention". It doesn't mean your investigative work is over with.

Sorry if I have no sympathy for those opposed, but IMO, if you need to arbitrarily lock your people up, with no charge, to maintain order, you have no reason to exist as a government... And I refuse to recognize your rights to exist as a government.... your people would be better off hanging your silly... and implacing a government of their own.

Never thought I would EVER say this, but.. I... I...I... ag.. agree with what Tekania said.

Now be on the lookout for flying pigs.

My country refuses to abide by this law for the weak. My country is built on the firm knowledge that if you did commit a crime, or are by there suspect of, you WILL be held in jail.....only to be released once proven innocent. Thus, the crime rate in my country is at an all-time low. If I must defend myself against oppression from the Weak who wish to support this bill, then so be it....

Supreme Chancellor; Frank Merritt
Ruler of the Armed Republic of Dirtyfrank

*A not-this-again sigh* If it passes, which it definitely looks like doing, your refusal is moot because the UN will ensure that you comply. And considering that my military outnumbers your entire population by a factor of 5, I'll be very happy to help.

My country refuses to abide by this law for the weak. My country is built on the firm knowledge that if you did commit a crime, or are by there suspect of, you WILL be held in jail.....only to be released once proven innocent.
This goes against the Definiton of 'Fair Trial' resolution, passed 14 February 2004, article four of which states 'Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Your objection is already against the rules of UN resolutions.

*A not-this-again sigh* If it passes, which it definitely looks like doing, your refusal is moot because the UN will ensure that you comply. And considering that my military outnumbers your entire population by a factor of 5, I'll be very happy to help.


Ahhh....and the Russians thought they could take the Afgan's.....and look what happened. My country is fully prepared to accept any and all sanctions imposed upon us. We will not back down....bring any and all military might needed....the Armed Republic of Dirtyfrank will not bow down to inferior laws......

IGNORE Cannons locked and loaded....

Well, before one suggests such mercenery, if under-standable, action, it may be wise to remind " Dirtyfrank " that this is mainly a OOC debate about OOC factors / ethics, as well as IC effects, to a point, how-ever. I suggest you maybe read some of the stickies and certainly the F.A.Q if you are not 100 % informed about how this U.N. works.

And also please be aware please, that " MY NATION WILL NOT BOW TO THE IMPERIALIST SCUM OF TEH 1 WORLDORZ " style state-ments are hardly going to win any new friends or grant you any credibility in other-wise rational debate.

Just so you know.

This goes against the Definiton of 'Fair Trial' resolution, passed 14 February 2004, article four of which states 'Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Your objection is already against the rules of UN resolutions.Although it gives no ruling on what the defination of "reasonable doubt" is....

Never thought I would EVER say this, but.. I... I...I... ag.. agree with what Tekania said.

Now be on the lookout for flying pigs.

I'm predominately libertarian... we were bound to agree on something eventually.... at least unless you were a Totalitarian "Dictatorial" Communist (Stalinist/Maoist)...

I am all for habeas corpus, dont get me wrong. However, maybe this next thought comes from reading way too many detective novels, but cant police charge you with drunkenness and hold you in the drunk tank for 12 hours? So further more, is this a violation of habeas corpus? Will my naiton still be able to do this? We have a very strong anti-drunk policy and as a side note, we have stopped two terrorist plots by dumping the suspects int he drunk tank and then rounding up the evidence in the 12 hour leeway.

cant police charge you with drunkenness and hold you in the drunk tank for 12 hours? So further more, is this a violation of habeas corpus?
Habeus Corpus requires that a detainee be charged, or released. You do that already. No conflict.

The government of Telidia welcomes this piece of legislation brought by the Ennish delegacy and wish to lend our full support in favour of this worthy resolution. We followed it with interest during the proposal stages and whilst time did not allow me to take part in the debate directly I do fully agree with the principle behind this legislation. Setting fair procedures for detainees is just as vital as those dealing with individuals who have been arrested/charged with a crime.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

Last UN Decision

The resolution "Habeas Corpus" was passed, 12550 votes to 3377, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Congratulations, Enn.

Hurrah!

Don't think I'll be trying something like that again in the short term, though.