NationStates Jolt Archive

The game Alpha Centauri looks into the future of our world. It paints a very vivid and accurate picture of the USA in today's society. Governments should be accountable, lest we end up with facist dictatorships. Here is an example.

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"

This proposal is designed for the protection of the world's citizens from having due process stripped through things such as the Patriot Act.

If passed, this proposal will force all member nations to allow all media represenatives and the general public to observe its debates, decision-making processes, and will enforce all member nations to disclose all government activities to the public and to the UN, regardless of how trivial they are.

This proposal is designed for the protection of the world's citizens from having due process stripped through things such as the Patriot Act.

If passed, this proposal will force all member nations to allow all media represenatives and the general public to observe its debates, decision-making processes, and will enforce all member nations to disclose all government activities to the public and to the UN, regardless of how trivial they are.

Erm - no.

there might be a very good reason why my government doesn't want to disclose what it is doing. One that doesn't involve secret plotting or attempts to reduce the freedoms of my citizens.

Plus sometimes decisions have to be made in private, and a final, unanimous opinion presented to the public. So that no one knows who voted which way - just what the decision was.

All my courts are open to the public, but not televised, because my people understand that justice must be done, and seen to be done. But the same does NOT apply to government.

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this newsflash in regards to intrusive/domestic issue proposals.

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

Erm - no.

there might be a very good reason why my government doesn't want to disclose what it is doing. One that doesn't involve secret plotting or attempts to reduce the freedoms of my citizens.

Plus sometimes decisions have to be made in private, and a final, unanimous opinion presented to the public. So that no one knows who voted which way - just what the decision was.

All my courts are open to the public, but not televised, because my people understand that justice must be done, and seen to be done. But the same does NOT apply to government.

Governments and politicians should not be above the law, nor should the interests of the government supercede the interests of its people.

The media should have full access to government information and government activities.

The process that results in justice is at least as important than the final result.

Governments and politicians should not be above the law, nor should the interests of the government supercede the interests of its people.

The media should have full access to government information and government activities.

The process that results in justice is at least as important than the final result.

I am not suggesting that my government believes itself to be above the law, and I would take offence to that suggestion if I thought it was an accusation.

However there are times that require secrecy. For example a government investigation in to one of my citizens can not possibly conducted in the glare of the media. The resulting trial can - because justice must be done, and must seen to be done.

In a similar way, if we have to conduct a covert operation of some type - whether to rescue someone being held hostage in a neighbouring country, or to diffuse a bomb without causing mass, widescale panic, I am pretty sure we would not be able to tell the media what we are doing, because it would interfere with what we are doing.

Finally there is a lot of discussion going on about my upcoming wedding. The Council of Ministers and the head of the National Security Office are discussing security details for the ceremony and reception. Now surely you can see why these debates and discussions can not possibly be made public knowledge, and why we can not let the media cover these discussions.
"Yes - we are going to have all this security. And here it all is. So if there are any loopholes we are broadcasting them on national, even international television, just so anyone who wants to attack us will know the best way to do it".

Governments deserve privacy for a reason - sometimes that is the ONLY way they can operate.

I can give you a lot more examples of times when the discussions of The Council and the Regional Councils had to remain private should you want them, but I suspect I am not the only member of the UN who feels that this bill is not acceptable in it's current form.

I have no desire to break the law, and no desire to behave in a manner the does not benifit my people. But if this resolution passes then I will have no choice but to do both. Not because I am a dictator, or seek to make myself their master, but because it is the only way we can govern effectively.

It is possible I was looking in the wrong place, but I could not actually find a copy of this proposal in the UN list of proposals.

Have you actually submitted this, or is this more of a discussion phase before it is submitted?

And if you have submitted it would it be possible to post a copy so that we can all better see what we are discussing?

"there might be a very good reason why my government doesn't want to disclose what it is doing. One that doesn't involve secret plotting or attempts to reduce the freedoms of my citizens."

Such as?
I can't think of any reasons that are not unethical.

"there might be a very good reason why my government doesn't want to disclose what it is doing. One that doesn't involve secret plotting or attempts to reduce the freedoms of my citizens."

Such as?
I can't think of any reasons that are not unethical.

Planning troop movements to stop an invading army.

'Nuff said.

"there might be a very good reason why my government doesn't want to disclose what it is doing. One that doesn't involve secret plotting or attempts to reduce the freedoms of my citizens."


Such as?
I can't think of any reasons that are not unethical.



Planning troop movements to stop an invading army.
'Nuff said.



Finally there is a lot of discussion going on about my upcoming wedding. The Council of Ministers and the head of the National Security Office are discussing security details for the ceremony and reception. Now surely you can see why these debates and discussions can not possibly be made public knowledge, and why we can not let the media cover these discussions.


There are plenty of reasons that are not unethical, nor would indicate I am trying to conquer the world.

Good points, TilEnca. Would you accept this bill if the words "Full disclosure when the government deems it safe to do so"? I think that would make the bill respect government privacy and the right of the public to know.

Was the alpha centauri bit actually included in the resolution, or is that just you giving background of your thinking?

As is, I'm opposed. It attacks national sovereignty, it takes power away from the government (not everyone is a democracy), and it's not written formally. The added clause helps, but doesn't entirely alleviate my concerns. Some trials should not be viewed by the public, for security and moral reasons. Even if it's "safe" to release information doesn't mean that it should be released.

Good points, TilEnca. Would you accept this bill if the words "Full disclosure when the government deems it safe to do so"? I think that would make the bill respect government privacy and the right of the public to know.

If you write it as that, then you might as well give it up now. Because the government is chosing what it is safe to disclose, and what it isn't safe to disclose - so I could just decide that everything is unsafe to be disclosed, whether that is the case or not.

Quite honestly, and this is just my opinion so feel free to ignore it, but I think this isn't going to get anywhere. You either overrule the government on what it has to disclose, which I, and a few others, oppose, or you give the government the power to disclose what it choses to, and the whole resolution becomes toothless.

Was the alpha centauri bit actually included in the resolution, or is that just you giving background of your thinking?

As is, I'm opposed. It attacks national sovereignty, it takes power away from the government (not everyone is a democracy), and it's not written formally. The added clause helps, but doesn't entirely alleviate my concerns. Some trials should not be viewed by the public, for security and moral reasons. Even if it's "safe" to release information doesn't mean that it should be released.

See - I don't think ANY trials should be hidden from the public, for any reason, but the events of the investigation and leading up to the trial are another matter.

See - I don't think ANY trials should be hidden from the public, for any reason, but the events of the investigation and leading up to the trial are another matter.


9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.


Yup, you got 'er on the nose: trials need transparency

And you're right about security/investigative/classification reasons to withhold information. If you look at some of the declassified documents the US government under the Freedom of Information Act, there are often large, very large, portions which are blacked out because it has been decided that it was a security risk to allow that information to go freely to the public.

Which does present a problem (which, once again, you're right about) as to who should do the authorization of classified documents.
I don't really have any answers, but I bet if the FoI Act (or similar world documents) were dug up and looked at, similar safety balances could be put in place.

So, in summary, You're right.

What if a trial involved sensitive information related to national security issues?

What if a trial involved sensitive information related to national security issues?
That's a good question, one I overlooked before.

OOC: I don't think that even in RL we have an answer for this. If you look at the ideas of military tribunals and the fair treatment of US prisoners in Guantanemo Bay, Cuba, I don't see any definite ruling about it. I think it'll prove to be one of the most telling and interesting questions of our time, which interest is more important, human rights or national security?

IC: I think that if provisions were made to extend jurisdiction of the government to classify trials the same way it could classify documents then it might work. But, then, we still have to find a reliable way to make sure there isn't abuse in the classification of douments...

The media should have full access to government information and government activities.

The people should have full access to government information and government activities.

And the people should have full access to all public activities informations and activities (including media).