NationStates Jolt Archive

To the Honorable Delegates and Members of the United Nations,

We hereby present a draft proposal for the Extradition Law of the United Nations.

3/22/5- We have revised the draft to fit the 3,500 character limit. From 12 Articles to 9.

Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1
Obligation to Extradite. Obligates each UN State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

Article 2
Extraditable Offenses. Article 2(1) defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty. Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense as including an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Article 3
Nationality. Article 3 provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Article 4
Prior Prosecution. Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested. Article 4(3) provides that extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State: (a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested; (b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or (c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

Article 5
Capital Punishment. Under Article 5, when an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but not under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

Article 6
Extradition Procedures and Required Documents. Article 6 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition. All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements, Article 6(3) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by: (a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority; (b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

Article 7
Additional Information. Under this Article, if the Requested State requires additional information to enable a decision to be taken on the request for extradition, the Requesting State shall respond to the request within such time as the Requested State requires.

Article 8
Requests for Extradition Made by Several States. Article 8 provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the executive authority of the Requested State in determining to which State, if any, to surrender a person whose extradition is sought by more than one State.

Article 9
Consultation. Article 9 provides that the Parties may consult with each other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty.


Comments, suggestions, and ideas are welcome. The proposal isn’t final yet.

Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

Free piece of advice: Burn this propoasal. Similar attempts have resulted in acts of terrorism and one came close to causing a massive war between allies.

My nation is one that only extradites to other nations that agree to extradite, no questions asked. If one of my citizens breaks the law in another country and that country is on my list of ones allowed to extradite to, I won't question when I extradite. I expect the same from any I extradite to, and that includes that they do not withhold just because I might execute their citizen.

I should note that DLE laws do not hold it as illegal to commit acts ranging up to blowing up a major portion of their nation with nuclear devices ranging up to the 50 megaton range. Thus, under your resolution, I can simply acquit them of something I don't even hold as illegal and be done with it.

So, really, you might want to think hard about this before continuing.

Free piece of advice: Burn this propoasal. Similar attempts have resulted in acts of terrorism and one came close to causing a massive war between allies.

My nation is one that only extradites to other nations that agree to extradite, no questions asked. If one of my citizens breaks the law in another country and that country is on my list of ones allowed to extradite to, I won't question when I extradite. I expect the same from any I extradite to, and that includes that they do not withhold just because I might execute their citizen.

I should note that DLE laws do not hold it as illegal to commit acts ranging up to blowing up a major portion of their nation with nuclear devices ranging up to the 50 megaton range. Thus, under your resolution, I can simply acquit them of something I don't even hold as illegal and be done with it.

So, really, you might want to think hard about this before continuing.

Not all governments are as ogrish as yours.

Humans and earthly entities are still law abiding citizens, not psychotic space despots. You are so way out in space. So don't shove your ET-like government on us.

Read the proposed legislation again. Article 2 clearly explains what extraditable offenses are.

Uh...yeah. Insulting one of the more experienced people on this forum is an interesting way to drum up support. :rolleyes:

Besides, this proposal seems to be even more restrictive than the ICJ resolution that was just voted down. I really have no problem going to an international court to resolve a dispute, but I hate having my hands completely tied by such a sweeping proposal as this. Theoretically, a nation could simply issue an arrest warrant for any felony covered in the "sanctuary" nation to then extradite a political criminal. I think that this should be left to individual nations to decide.

Oh I didn't know there is a seniority rule here. Article 9 Resolution 49 states, "Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State."

I don't care who's more experienced or not. Seniority rule is an open door for tyranny.

Sweeping proposal?

It only allows you to initiate extradtion with countries with similar extraditable offenses as yours. Not all UN members have similar extraditable offenses. That is why I left the process of selecting extraditable offenses to individual UN nations. And even with an issue of arrest warrant, that would be useless without a system of extradition.

If you don't include the UN proposal category you want and the relative strength, it's impossible to make a fair judgement.

Also, it looks a little long. You're aware of the 3500 character proposal limit?

If you don't include the UN proposal category you want and the relative strength, it's impossible to make a fair judgement.

Also, it looks a little long. You're aware of the 3500 character proposal limit?

Than you for that very helpful piece of advice. I will make the changes as soon as possible.

OOC:
Another resolution that makes me wish I'd thought of it first. Excellent job for a first draft!

IC:
Article 2(2) concerns me. I'm tempted to call conspiracy charges garbage and say that if the conspiracy isn't illegal in both countries there's no justification for extradition, but I'd like to hear your thinking behind it.

Also, I'm concerned that there is no requirement for a finding that the charge is plausible. As I read it, my nation could conceiveably assert that a dissident taking refuge in your nation was an axe murderer, and you'd be forced to extradite him to me to be executed at the airport even if the charge was a total fabrication.

OOC:
Another resolution that makes me wish I'd thought of it first. Excellent job for a first draft!

Thank you very much.


Article 2(2) concerns me. I'm tempted to call conspiracy charges garbage and say that if the conspiracy isn't illegal in both countries there's no justification for extradition, but I'd like to hear your thinking behind it.

The proof of conspiracy to commit an extraditable offense should be fulfilled by Article 6(3)(a) by requiring "a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority (*could be your Intelligence Minister, Defense Minister, Solicitor General, etc)."

If conspiracy is legal in both countries, then there's no justification for extradtion? You are correct. Article 2(1) defines what extraditable offenses are.

Also, I'm concerned that there is no requirement for a finding that the charge is plausible. As I read it, my nation could conceiveably assert that a dissident taking refuge in your nation was an axe murderer, and you'd be forced to extradite him to me to be executed at the airport even if the charge was a total fabrication.

Article 6(3)(a) would require a Requesting State to provide evidences to support its allegation. Article 7 would allow a Requested State to ask for more additional information from the Requesting State before it can decide to extradite an individual.

In addition, you cannot execute an alleged criminal without trial. You can't execute him at the airport. There's a UN Resolution regarding that matter. And we have Article 5 in this current proposal to deal with capital punishments.

Great, so if any insane country's leader who happens to be a U.N. member descides that he doesn't like one of the citizens under our jurisdiction, they can just order us to send them on over? I think not. We do have a duty to our citizens, to assure that they are given fair trials and treated equally. We will not, ever, allow another nation to simply tell us to hand them over, without at the very least providing some form of evidence.

Great, so if any insane country's leader who happens to be a U.N. member descides that he doesn't like one of the citizens under our jurisdiction, they can just order us to send them on over? I think not. We do have a duty to our citizens, to assure that they are given fair trials and treated equally. We will not, ever, allow another nation to simply tell us to hand them over, without at the very least providing some form of evidence.

The proposed extradition law allows you to refuse an extradtion request. In your case, knowing that the Requesting State is governed by an insane leader, under Article 6(3)(a), you have the right to refuse their request because an insane leader is not a "competent authority."

If you wish not to surrender your citizen, then don't. There is no binding rule that you have to surrender any individual at all. This proposal only enacts the extradition procedure on every UN State.

Plus, your citizen should commit an extraditable crime first before a Requesting State can initiate the extradition procedure. An insane dictator cannot extradite your citizen without any charge of extraditable offense.

I count it as 3,359 characters. Squeezing in under the bar.

Article 6 mentions an article 7(3) that doesn't seem to exist.

Also, I'm not convinced that article 6 provides sufficient protection against frivolous or abusive extradition requests.

If this is optional, then it is useless. If it is not optional, then it is very dangerous. According to what you say, any leader could descide arbitrarily whether any other leader is a competent authority.
You also say that a crime has to be commited first. This is not true, as another country's government could charge a citizen of our country with a crime for no reason. We could not even assure our citizens a fair trial. We would be at the mercy of another nation, and our only recourse would be to respond in kind. This makes way for a legislative war

I count it as 3,359 characters. Squeezing in under the bar.

Article 6 mentions an article 7(3) that doesn't seem to exist.

Also, I'm not convinced that article 6 provides sufficient protection against frivolous or abusive extradition requests.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will change it asap.

You can always deny abusive or frivolous extradition requests. You can always cut off your relations and declare their ambassador persona non grata to prevent requests from coming in.

Like I have said earlier, there is no binding rule that forces you to comply with the proposed resolution. The purpose of this legislation is only to enact an extradition procedure on all UN states.

I think I will change it to Extradition Procedure rather than Extradition Law.

If this is optional, then it is useless. If it is not optional, then it is very dangerous.

I want you to fully understand this.

The proposal does not force you to comply with any extradition request. The proposal gives you multiple ways to refuse a request. The proposal is only to enact an extradition procedure on all UN States. The only binding law here is that you have to follow the extradition procedure if you wish to request or you receive an extradition request.

Its like enacting a standard operating procedure on how to do a CPR in an emergency. You don't have to do CPR all the time because we have already advanced technology. But when you face a decision that you have to use CPR, you are bound to follow CPR procedures alone.

According to what you say, any leader could descide arbitrarily whether any other leader is a competent authority.

I have left it to individual nations to decide what is "competent" or not because they know what is best for their national interest. It is not the law who will decide who is competent or not. A "competent authority" could be very sane but at the same time commit crimes.

You also say that a crime has to be commited first. This is not true, as another country's government could charge a citizen of our country with a crime for no reason. We could not even assure our citizens a fair trial. We would be at the mercy of another nation, and our only recourse would be to respond in kind. This makes way for a legislative war

Can you please read the proposal first?

Article 1
Obligation to Extradite. Obligates each UN State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.


You have to commit extraditable offenses first before a State could request to initiate an extradition procedure. And you don't have to fulfill every extradition request. Deny the request as much as you want to.

I want you to fully understand this.

The proposal does not force you to comply with any extradition request. The proposal gives you multiple ways to refuse a request. The proposal is only to enact an extradition procedure on all UN States. The only binding law here is that you have to follow the extradition procedure if you wish to request or you receive an extradition request.

Its like enacting a standard operating procedure on how to do a CPR in an emergency. You don't have to do CPR all the time because we have already advanced technology. But when you face a decision that you have to use CPR, you are bound to follow CPR procedures alone.


Alright, then I misunderstood this. I thought that this would be an attempt to force nations to extradite their citizens at the request of another U.N. Nation.
However, I am failing to see the point of establishing such a proceedure.


I have left it to individual nations to decide what is "competent" or not because they know what is best for their national interest. It is not the law who will decide who is competent or not. A "competent authority" could be very sane but at the same time commit crimes.

If this was a proposal to force extradition, this would be a giant loophole which would effectively make the proposal worthless. However, since it is not, this provision only makes sense. The proposal itself is what seems needless now.


Can you please read the proposal first?

Article 1
Obligation to Extradite. Obligates each UN State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

this does not guarantee a fair trial, by any means.


You have to commit extraditable offenses first before a State could request to initiate an extradition procedure. And you don't have to fulfill every extradition request. Deny the request as much as you want to.

No, you only have to be accused of having commited extraditable offenses. And in Cyrian Space a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. As I understand it, the law is much the same in many other U.N. Nations.

I see no point to this proposal. Why would it be better to follow this proceedure than to allow U.N. Nations to work out Extraditions between themselves?

One monkey wrench for you to handle, then we'll render our verdict.

The concept of "Sanctuary".

Alright, then I misunderstood this. I thought that this would be an attempt to force nations to extradite their citizens at the request of another U.N. Nation.
However, I am failing to see the point of establishing such a proceedure.

You fail to see it because you've never been requested to extradite somebody. International law always have procedures.


If this was a proposal to force extradition, this would be a giant loophole which would effectively make the proposal worthless. However, since it is not, this provision only makes sense. The proposal itself is what seems needless now.

I have left it to the states for them to determine what "competency" is. If I defined "competency" for you then it will automatically force UN States to comply with the request because of a fixed explicit definition.

The flexibility of this procedure will prevent your country from entertaining worthless requests.




this does not guarantee a fair trial, by any means.

Again, you don't have to surrender your citizen if you feel your citizen is a victim of frivolous allegations. If you feel your citizen won't get a fair trial, then deny the request. Clear enough?



No, you only have to be accused of having commited extraditable offenses. And in Cyrian Space a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. As I understand it, the law is much the same in many other U.N. Nations.

You mean Article 2(2)? You can only extradite your citizen if your law categorizes it as an extraditable offense and if the Requesting State categorized it as an extraditable offense also.

You can't extradite individuals to countries that do not share the specific extraditable offenses you have in your law.


I see no point to this proposal. Why would it be better to follow this proceedure than to allow U.N. Nations to work out Extraditions between themselves?

Most countries don't have extradition procedures. I bet your country does not have one.

Don't worry so much about your citizens. If you have good citizens, then the amount of extradition requests you receive are relatively low. If you have rogue citizens, then be prepared to receive lots of extradition requests.

Rogue nations requesting for an extradition procedure are likely to fail because of the "competency" clause is left to individual states to define. It is unlikely that one would grant an extradition procedure to a rogue nation.

Although there is no way to force my nation to comply, I am happy to do so, I do not wish to harbor criminals and hope that other countries will reciprocate. Thus, a lawbreaker is prevented from avoiding punishment by simply escaping to another country.

Actually, Krioval does have an extradition policy. Assuming I have neutral or stronger relations with the country in question, the matter goes before a Kriovalian judge, who acts similar to a grand jury. If probable cause for a commission of crime is determined, the extradition papers are signed and the suspect transferred. Cases involving capital punishment typically require the extraditing nation to waive the death penalty in favor a life sentence (there are exceptions, as Krioval hasn't universally abolished the death penalty, but we're pretty close to it). We allow appeals by either party, and since we start with the national (as opposed to regional or city) courts, the first appeal goes to the Appeals Court, and the second to the Supreme Court. After the matter is settled, the Commander signs off on the decision, either way.

If the country in question has weak or no relations with Krioval, we may refuse the request, insist that a trial be convened either in Krioval or in a neutral third country, or we may do the standard procedure. In any case, since we require some independent verification of wrongdoing other than a nation's say-so, we're far less likely to deport or expel people targeted for their political views or social status.

We also usually require notice of all charges that the person faces, and our relations can drop quite rapidly if extra charges are appended after the extradition proceedings are complete. During all of this, naturally, the suspect is kept in Kriovalian custody.

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

I think the proposal has its merits, those being to make extradition standards uniform. However, I disagree with the methods (or lack thereof) of enforcement as well as the lack of provision compelling the introduction of some level of evidence to convince a nation that extradition is warranted (though article 7 comes close). I'm a bit confused about the prior conviction part as well. If both nations are willing to transfer an escaped or prematurely released convict to complete the sentence, what happens to that person under the proposal?

Ultimately, I'm ambivalent about this simply because it affects everybody, all the time, and has no defense against "hidden charges" being added after the extradition, though it spells out a good deal of what I already do.

You fail to see it because you've never been requested to extradite somebody. International law always have procedures.
I simply cannot believe the audacity of this assumption! You may as well say "You fail to see the need for our specially made breathing apparatus, because you've never breathed before." Please do not assume the incompetence of not only me, but my entire government.

Actually, we have extradition proceedures, not to mention arrangements currently with various nations (evil woody thoughts, black corsairs, britonian space) to extradite pirates, smugglers, terrorists, ect. There have been MANY occaisions where these arangements have taken place. Really, most countries CAN and HAVE worked it out between themselves before.
Of course, criminals who commit crimes should not be able to simply find another country to escape their just punishment, but your proposal doesn't really change anything, aside from some of the paperwork. It's still up to a government whether or not to extradite their citizens. It already is that way, so I see no need for change.

You fail to see it because you've never been requested to extradite somebody. International law always have procedures.

Would the representative from NeoCon Hubris please point to the source of this "International Law" they speak of, as we can find shrinkingly little any two nations agree upon, let alone a body of law the entire world agrees upon?

this seems an interesting proposal, and maybe could have our support. there is only one concern though: article 5. how can you garentee that the death penalty will not used? the UN has no military or police, if the requestee objects and the requestant uses it, it could lead to war between the 2 nations, and also, there is the cover-up tactic, i.e. they could say the person is alive when he was fried, hanged, shot, decapitated, overdosed, whatever ages ago.

We find it interesting how a nation, which in the thread about the futile repeal attempt of the resolution on marriage, can cry and go on and on about "states' rights", only to turn around and post such a draconian proposal as this, tieing the hands of nation's to deliver their own citizens/subjects to other nations.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

As Fass has no extradition treaties with other nations, except for a few very close allies who allow us to supervise the whole process, for the simple reason that we do not trust any other nation with the wellbeing of our citizens and other people in our jurisdictions, we find this proposal deeply disturbing. The Royal Ministry of Foreign Affaires has been put on stand-by to start counter-acting this in any way possible.

Not all governments are as ogrish as yours.

Humans and earthly entities are still law abiding citizens, not psychotic space despots. You are so way out in space. So don't shove your ET-like government on us.

Read the proposed legislation again. Article 2 clearly explains what extraditable offenses are.

DLE law applies to all beings within DLE territories, whether they be Sarkarasetans, AIs, dragons, goats, sentient planets, intelligent slime molds, or humans. And, yes, DLE territory does include humans. The policy has proven quite useful to those living in the Earth territory, who have found ways to make their lives in the ruins of what was their former nation better. Of course, you didn't bother to check DLE public information and read all of it to know exactly how close to you DLE territory comes. Now you know why I have a legitimate reason for keeping a large and heavily-armed fleet in Earth Orbit.

I was using Article 4, which, as worded, allows me to acquit a citizen of any crime they did in another nation through my courts and then not have to deal with the extradition.

And, really, my extradition laws are not unique. I just copied them from someone else due to sheer laziness.

I think the proposal has its merits, those being to make extradition standards uniform. However, I disagree with the methods (or lack thereof) of enforcement

Correct me if I'm wrong, no RL extradition treaty has been made to force a party to comply a request. Extradition treaties are totally diplomatic and should be pursued in good faith. I've been looking at different extradition treaties and I find it not important to force a party to grant a request. NS gaming sometimes is a whacked system and to provide a strict provision of UN enforcement is useless. I have left it to the individual UN States to decide how they could convince another party. Diplomacy, santions, military action. Use the methods that best apply to your case.

as well as the lack of provision compelling the introduction of some level of evidence to convince a nation that extradition is warranted (though article 7 comes close).

It is not the treaty's duty to put a quota on evidence. This is too much red tape. Some cases need huge amounts of evidence and placing a small quota will negate Article 7. Some cases require little evidence and placing a large quota will just prolong the extradition treaty. I have made it very flexible for not all extradition cases are similar.

I'm a bit confused about the prior conviction part as well.

You mean Article 4 Prior Prosecution? If a Requesting State asks to extradite an individual, the Requested State may refuse to grant extradition if the individual has already been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense which extradtion is requested. If the Requested State has gotten to a situation like 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), or 4(2)(c), then the request of extradition shall be granted. Now, if the above situations occur and still have doubts about the extradition request, under Article 6(3)(a) you can refuse the request if you find their authorities incompetent.

If both nations are willing to transfer an escaped or prematurely released convict to complete the sentence, what happens to that person under the proposal?

You mean extraditing a convict? First, you cannot extradite a person if that person has already been convicted of the same extraditable offense you charged. If you're charging a different extraditable offense, the Requested State has an option to refuse or grant your request. They may want to capture the fugitive and let him/her serve the full sentence before they can extradite. Or they may want to capture the fugitive and initiate an extradition procedure without the fugitive serving the full sentence.

Ultimately, I'm ambivalent about this simply because it affects everybody, all the time,

That is correct. But you can only have an extradition procedure if both parties categorized the offense as extraditable. You can't extradite anyone to a country where you do not have the same specific extraditable offense. It is possible that you can only extradite individuals to just 100 UN States depending how you categorize extraditable offenses.

and has no defense against "hidden charges" being added after the extradition, though it spells out a good deal of what I already do.

That could be covered by Article 9, though not explicitly. After the extradition process, if the individual is convicted of the extraditable offense, then your country will not have jurisdiction except on the issue of capital punishment or until the sentence is over. If the individual is acquitted, then that individual must be returned to the Requested State. If the Requesting State finds another charge of an extraditable offense, then they must follow the whole procedure again.

this seems an interesting proposal, and maybe could have our support. there is only one concern though: article 5. how can you garentee that the death penalty will not used? the UN has no military or police, if the requestee objects and the requestant uses it, it could lead to war between the 2 nations, and also, there is the cover-up tactic, i.e. they could say the person is alive when he was fried, hanged, shot, decapitated, overdosed, whatever ages ago.

The Requesting State must provide you an assurance that death penalty will not be imposed, or if imposed it will not be carried out. This is really up to you. If you received a request from a UN State you barely have relations with, or with a history of breaking that assurance, then you may not want to extradite that individual. If you received a request from a UN State which you have deep friendly relations, then you may want to grant that extradition providing you their assurance. After all, if you become a Requesting State, you want the other party to grant your request too. Extradition is a very tricky diplomatic procedure that is why I didn't put any provision of strict enforcement. This is an extradition procedure between two UN States, the UN Assembly has no compelling interest to enforce or intervene your extradition procedure.

Extradition discourages you to cheat. Because what goes around comes around. It is purely diplomatic (or whatever method you wish to use), and if you're good in diplomacy, then you don't have to worry much about wars. There is very little chance that you will engage in a full-scale war for a single individual. But if war arises, then the two parties are probably insane. I don't see no reason to kill hundreds of each other's military for an individual to be extradited. Again, use your diplomatic skills wisely. Laws cannot control every situation.

DLE law applies to all beings within DLE territories, whether they be Sarkarasetans, AIs, dragons, goats, sentient planets, intelligent slime molds, or humans. And, yes, DLE territory does include humans. The policy has proven quite useful to those living in the Earth territory, who have found ways to make their lives in the ruins of what was their former nation better. Of course, you didn't bother to check DLE public information and read all of it to know exactly how close to you DLE territory comes. Now you know why I have a legitimate reason for keeping a large and heavily-armed fleet in Earth Orbit.

OK. Happy now?

I was using Article 4, which, as worded, allows me to acquit a citizen of any crime they did in another nation through my courts and then not have to deal with the extradition.

Article 4 does not allow you to acquit the individual. It is the court's duty to convict them or not, unless you also head the court.

You misundersood. Article 4(1) states that the Requested State can refuse a request if the individual has been convicted or acquitted of the SAME extraditable offense the Requesting State has charged.

Your interpretation is far from what the actual Article states.

And, really, my extradition laws are not unique. I just copied them from someone else due to sheer laziness.

...

I've talked enough about my nation now. Just got done with a huge post related to the subject and feel tired of it.

Article 4 does not allow you to acquit the individual. It is the court's duty to convict them or not, unless you also head the court.

You misundersood. Article 4(1) states that the Requested State can refuse a request if the individual has been convicted or acquitted of the SAME extraditable offense the Requesting State has charged.

Your interpretation is far from what the actual Article states.

Article 4
Prior Prosecution. Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested. Article 4(3) provides that extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State: (a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested; (b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or (c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

The bolded part is what I am working on. I just acquit anyone who gets back from certain nations for anything they have done as soon as their ship docks, and I'm covered.

The People of Domnonia are happy with this proposal as is. You have our support!

We find it interesting how a nation, which in the thread about the futile repeal attempt of the resolution on marriage, can cry and go on and on about "states' rights", only to turn around and post such a draconian proposal as this, tieing the hands of nation's to deliver their own citizens/subjects to other nations.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

HUH? Didn't you read that I have made this proposal as a procedure not a coercive law? Stating that the extradition procedure is between 2 UN States. The proposal does not force any UN State to surrender its citizens because I have given them much space to ignore extradition requests. Plus, I have reduced the red tape present in most UN resolutions. I have made my proposal very State friendly. I didn't create any commission whatsoever. The power to decide is in the State, not an international body.

The bolded part is what I am working on. I just acquit anyone who gets back from certain nations for anything they have done as soon as their ship docks, and I'm covered.

Article 2 supports every Article in the proposed legislation.

Article 2 defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in BOTH UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

Article 4(1) prohibits you to extradite an individual already convicted or acquitted of the same extraditable offense charged by a Requesting State. You have to have the offense categorized as extraditable and the other party must categorize the offense as extraditable too. Meaning Article 4(1) does allow you to ignore extradition requests you have already acquitted or convicted but it MUST be of the SAME extraditable offense the Requesting State charges by definition of Article 2.

*speaks up in the clutter of off topic talk*

we find this proposal interesting in the fact that lots of nations are debating it as if it was a law. the way we, resistancia, see it, this is not a law, but in fact guidlines of how to run this particular process. we do not see anywhere a statement saying that you have to extradite supposed criminals, rather it is merely kindof universal guidlines for international extradition proceedures within the UN. it has how the request shall be made, and an 'option' section as to whether or not the requestee will allow the extradition. if a person commits a crime, say running a red light in the requesting country, i would be for the extradition so that they could pay the fine/one year jail etc. if the punishment was ludicris for the crime, ie death penalty for running a red light, i have the option to deny the extradition. all this argument about you 'having' to extridite the the person is a load of hot air.

*speaks up in the clutter of off topic talk*

we find this proposal interesting in the fact that lots of nations are debating it as if it was a law. the way we, resistancia, see it, this is not a law, but in fact guidlines of how to run this particular process. we do not see anywhere a statement saying that you have to extradite supposed criminals, rather it is merely kindof universal guidlines for international extradition proceedures within the UN. it has how the request shall be made, and an 'option' section as to whether or not the requestee will allow the extradition. if a person commits a crime, say running a red light in the requesting country, i would be for the extradition so that they could pay the fine/one year jail etc. if the punishment was ludicris for the crime, ie death penalty for running a red light, i have the option to deny the extradition. all this argument about you 'having' to extridite the the person is a load of hot air.

Exactly. Can I worship you? *bows down and worships Resistencia*

Article 6

Extradition Procedures and Required Documents. Article 6 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition. All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements, Article 6(3) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by: (a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority; (b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

1. I don't think that nice formatting will work in a resolution. No bold, no underline.

ii. The article quoted above just has me completely confused. It reads like a summary of some other document. What is 6(3)? What were 6(1) and 6(2)?

c) and why the sentence "Article 6 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition."? Did you do that in all the paragraphs, and that's the only one I noticed? If so, I'd recommend you remove them all and let each paragraph just speak for itself.






Here. I've taken a crack at proposal-friendly formatting and removed some of the sentences I think imply this is a summary of some other resolution.

No offense taken if you don't like my suggestions; no offense intended by posting a rewrite.

Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1 - Obligation to Extradite

Each UN State is obligated to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

Article 2 - Extraditable Offenses

1. An offense is extraditable if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.
2. An extraditable offense includes an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Article 3 - Nationality

Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested. Extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State:
(a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested;
(b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or
(c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

Article 5 - Capital Punishment

When an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but not under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

Article 6 - Extradition Procedures and Required Documents

1. All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel.
2. A request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by:
(a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority;
(b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

Article 7 - Additional Information

If the Requested State requires additional information to enable a decision to be taken on the request for extradition, the Requesting State shall respond to the request within such time as the Requested State requires.

Article 8 - Requests for Extradition Made by Several States

Article 8 provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the executive authority of the Requested State in determining to which State, if any, to surrender a person whose extradition is sought by more than one State.

Article 9 - Consultation

The Parties may consult with each other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty.


Oh, and this is just over 3,000 characters. I would further recommend you rewrite Article 8 - maybe it's a side-effect of your prior edits, but it doesn't make sense to me.

I'd also recommend you add a couple of flowery references to passed resolutions at the top. Gives people much more comfort about what they're about to read, which in turn makes them more favorable to it, which in turn makes it more likely to pass.

Article 2 supports every Article in the proposed legislation.

Article 2 defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in BOTH UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

Article 4(1) prohibits you to extradite an individual already convicted or acquitted of the same extraditable offense charged by a Requesting State. You have to have the offense categorized as extraditable and the other party must categorize the offense as extraditable too. Meaning Article 4(1) does allow you to ignore extradition requests you have already acquitted or convicted but it MUST be of the SAME extraditable offense the Requesting State charges by definition of Article 2.

Clearing a person of every possible crime they have committed in another country covers them for any charge that can be brought against them. Any charge can be pointed to as cleared. It's clearing them of all offenses, not just one, and any offense brought up features under one of the offenses cleared.

And, yes, most of the things on that list are illegal in DLE. Just not illegal to be pulled in other nations under DLE law.

Clearing a person of every possible crime they have committed in another country covers them for any charge that can be brought against them. Any charge can be pointed to as cleared. It's clearing them of all offenses, not just one, and any offense brought up features under one of the offenses cleared.

Why would you want to clear a person for EVERY POSSIBLE crime? It is not the international community's interest that you clear a person for every crime he could POSSIBLY commit. Its like giving away a pardon to someone who hasn't commited any crime yet.

There's a little bit of misunderstanding. You can't clear an individual for a crime which did not occur in your country. You can't put an individual on trial, convict, or acquite him/her for a crime which did not occur in your country either.

What Article 4(1) states, is that you are prohibited to extradite an individual for a crime which he has already been convicted or acquitted in your country.

For example, if an individual committed rebellion IN your country and you have convicted or acquitted him, my country cannot request to initiate an extradition procedure and charge him with rebellion too. That's double jeopardy and that's prohibited. I can request for an extradition for any other extraditable offense but not rebellion.

Exactly. Can I worship you? *bows down and worships Resistencia*
no you cant, because there are issues in other threads that we disagree with your nation on. my statement was said to remind people that not all UN resolutions are to create laws, rather to give guidelines on certain processes

Why would you want to clear a person for EVERY POSSIBLE crime? It is not the international community's interest that you clear a person for every crime he could POSSIBLY commit. Its like giving away a pardon to someone who hasn't commited any crime yet.

Why? To preserve my extradition policies. They will remain what they are, despite the UN. And who said I was doing it for the international community?

There's a little bit of misunderstanding. You can't clear an individual for a crime which did not occur in your country. You can't put an individual on trial, convict, or acquite him/her for a crime which did not occur in your country either.

What Article 4(1) states, is that you are prohibited to extradite an individual for a crime which he has already been convicted or acquitted in your country.

For example, if an individual committed rebellion IN your country and you have convicted or acquitted him, my country cannot request to initiate an extradition procedure and charge him with rebellion too. That's double jeopardy and that's prohibited. I can request for an extradition for any other extraditable offense but not rebellion.

The wording, as it exists, does not support that as being the only interpretation. In fact, it pretty much allows my interpretation with ease. You need to reword it with that explanation in mind.

If this is going to be a protocol, rather than a law, it's not really a resolution anymore, is it?

I mean, resolutions are laws. Like, by definition and stuff.

I'd say change it back to law, and add an article about nationstates being able to refuse all extradition with select countries, but not once an extradition request has been made, and not piecemeal. all or nothing with the countries you agree to do it with.

no you cant, because there are issues in other threads that we disagree with your nation on. my statement was said to remind people that not all UN resolutions are to create laws, rather to give guidelines on certain processes


I don't care. I don't dislike people who have different beliefs than mine. At least you got the point of the extradition procedure.

For example, if an individual committed rebellion IN your country and you have convicted or acquitted him, my country cannot request to initiate an extradition procedure and charge him with rebellion too. That's double jeopardy and that's prohibited. I can request for an extradition for any other extraditable offense but not rebellion.
that isnt my understanding of double jeopardy. to me, it is that, taking an example, if someone committed a rebellion in one country, and is convicted or acquitted, they cannot be charged with that individual crime. if they were to go to another country, comit rebellion there, it is a different crime (dif country, dif situation, etc), therefore can be charged for it. however another country cannot charge them with the initial rebellion that they were convicted/acquitted for.

Why? To preserve my extradition policies. They will remain what they are, despite the UN. And who said I was doing it for the international community?

So your extradition policy is to clear every person for every crime they could POSSIBLY commit? Then no one in your country is in jail then. Do you have any police force?


The wording, as it exists, does not support that as being the only interpretation. In fact, it pretty much allows my interpretation with ease. You need to reword it with that explanation in mind.

I'm sorry to say that I have completely missed your point. It must be your alien intelligence. Can you give me a scenario of what you are trying to point out? Then maybe we could clear things up.

So your extradition policy is to clear every person for every crime they could POSSIBLY commit? Then no one in your country is in jail then. Do you have any police force?

No, my extradition policy is only to extradite to nations that do not conditionally extradite.

I'm sorry to say that I have completely missed your point. It must be your alien intelligence. Can you give me a scenario of what you are trying to point out? Then maybe we could clear things up.

Okay, try this: Take your arguement and point out, in exacting detail, where Article 4 and Article 2 support what you said that cannot be interpretted a different way.

that isnt my understanding of double jeopardy. to me, it is that, taking an example, if someone committed a rebellion in one country, and is convicted or acquitted, they cannot be charged with that individual crime.

Yes, you are definitely correct. It is not double jeopardy. I used the wrong terminology.

if they were to go to another country, comit rebellion there, it is a different crime (dif country, dif situation, etc), therefore can be charged for it. however another country cannot charge them with the initial rebellion that they were convicted/acquitted for.

Exactly. You explained it better.

1. I don't think that nice formatting will work in a resolution. No bold, no underline.

Oh-- I used the link from the proposal writing guide that directed me to the real UN website and how to write resolutions. Was the link a bad idea? I still want your input so please tell me.

ii. The article quoted above just has me completely confused. It reads like a summary of some other document. What is 6(3)? What were 6(1) and 6(2)?

I'll rewrite it for you. I won't edit the one on the first page. I'll just post the revised legislation after this post.

c) and why the sentence "Article 6 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition."? Did you do that in all the paragraphs, and that's the only one I noticed? If so, I'd recommend you remove them all and let each paragraph just speak for itself.


I'll just remove it. Thanks.


No offense taken if you don't like my suggestions; no offense intended by posting a rewrite.

I absolutely welcome it.


Oh, and this is just over 3,000 characters. I would further recommend you rewrite Article 8 - maybe it's a side-effect of your prior edits, but it doesn't make sense to me.

It just states that if the individual is requested by multiple UN States, then under Article 8 the executive authority of the Requested State must be provided by a non-exclusive list of factors to help him determine which country he should surrender the requested individual.

I'd also recommend you add a couple of flowery references to passed resolutions at the top. Gives people much more comfort about what they're about to read, which in turn makes them more favorable to it, which in turn makes it more likely to pass.

I think the extradition treaty I have proposed to legislate is unprecedented. But I will check the list of ratified UN resolutions.

3/23/05- I have made some revisions to accomodate some suggestions from YGSM.


Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1 - Obligation to Extradite

Obligates each UN State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

Article 2 - Extraditable Offenses

Article 2(1) defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense as including an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Article 3 - Nationality

Provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

Article 4(2) provides that extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State:
4(2)(a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested;
4(2)(b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or
4(2)(c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

Article 5 - Capital Punishment

When an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but not under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

Article 6 - Extradition Procedures and Required Documents

Article 6(1) All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements,

Article 6(2) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by:
6(2)(a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority;
6(2)(b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

Article 7 - Additional Information

If the Requested State requires additional information to enable a decision to be taken on the request for extradition, the Requesting State shall respond to the request within such time as the Requested State requires.

Article 8 - Requests for Extradition Made by Several States

Provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the executive authority of the Requested State in determining to which State, if any, to surrender a person whose extradition is sought by more than one State.

Article 9 - Consultation

Provides that the Parties may consult with each other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty.

YGSM, tell me what you think.

I like it. A lot.

Article 8 "provides a list of non-exclusive factors to be considered" but doesn't say what they are. Is the intent that these factors be agreed upon bilaterally when two countries enter into an extradition agreement, and the factors can be different for different pairs of countries?

I like it. A lot.

Article 8 "provides a list of non-exclusive factors to be considered" but doesn't say what they are. Is the intent that these factors be agreed upon bilaterally when two countries enter into an extradition agreement, and the factors can be different for different pairs of countries?


I see no need to provide the executive authority of the Requested State a list of non-exclusive factors in a bilateral extradition procedure. It is already understood that if the executive authority of the Requested State decides to grant an extradition request, the individual requested will be automatically surrendered to the Requesting State.

In a case where multiple UN States request to initiate an extradition procedure for an individual, it is mandatory that all Resquesting States to provide a list of factors to the the executive authority of the Requested State to help him/her determine which Requesting State the individual must be extradited. This multilateral extradition procedure must be negotiated by all participating States. I made Article 8 flexible because not all multilateral extradition requests are similar.

Oh!

OK, I get it. I was reading it wrong.

OK. This proposal will be submitted to the UN floor at 12 noon of March 24, 2005.

8:3 against. Takers?

FYI, at the present moment, the government's policy is that we refuse extradition completely, for any offence, to any nation which has executed a person in the last 10 years.

Obligates each UN State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

So how, exactly, can you interpret this to mean "it just establishes protocols for extradition"? It seems very, very obligatory to me. And we don't like obligatory where extradition is concerned. Change this please.

Addtionally, I don't see the necessity of this at all. Why fix what isn't broken and put in needless bureaucracy in the process? There's an argument to be made that it might standardise the process, but given that UN members are the minority, we see no real benefit from simplification since we'd have to worry about different standards and protocols when dealing with extradition cases anyway.

8:3 against. Takers?

I'll take it at 10:2 against with it failing to reach quorum.

No proposal makes it first time around.

This one can pass eventually.

I'll put a small number of DLE Nukes on it.

So how, exactly, can you interpret this to mean "it just establishes protocols for extradition"? It seems very, very obligatory to me. And we don't like obligatory where extradition is concerned. Change this please.

Excellent point. I'll change the wording.

The revised Treaty would state:

Article 1 - Obligation to follow the procedure

Obligates each UN State to comply with this extradition procedure when granting or denying extradition to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.


This revised Article would not obligate you to extradite, but obligates you to follow the procedure.

Thank you for bringing that up. The new procedure would be posted after this thread. The submission of this proposal would be extended to 3:00PM PT of 3/25/05.

Addtionally, I don't see the necessity of this at all. Why fix what isn't broken and put in needless bureaucracy in the process? There's an argument to be made that it might standardise the process, but given that UN members are the minority, we see no real benefit from simplification since we'd have to worry about different standards and protocols when dealing with extradition cases anyway.

There is no added bureaucracy here. The bureaucrats who will process the extradition procedure are your elected/appointed government officials. This will coordinate your Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch.

Even if UN members are the minority, I think its still a huge amount of nations. Correct me if I'm wrong, there are 30k+ nations in the UN and studying different extradition procedures of 30k nations would just prolong the process.

Any wanted criminal could hide in any of those 30k countries and it is very disappointing that you cannot punish a criminal because the other party has no extradition procedure to use.

3/25/05- Revised Article 1 to accomodate the idea of Kelssek.

Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1 - Obligation to follow the procedure

Obligates each UN State to comply with this extradition procedure when granting or denying extradition to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

Article 2 - Extraditable Offenses

Article 2(1) defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense as including an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Article 3 - Nationality

Provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

Article 4(2) provides that extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State:
4(2)(a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested;
4(2)(b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or
4(2)(c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

Article 5 - Capital Punishment

When an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but not under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

Article 6 - Extradition Procedures and Required Documents

Article 6(1) All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements,

Article 6(2) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by:
6(2)(a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority;
6(2)(b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

Article 7 - Additional Information

If the Requested State requires additional information to enable a decision to be taken on the request for extradition, the Requesting State shall respond to the request within such time as the Requested State requires.

Article 8 - Requests for Extradition Made by Several States

Provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the executive authority of the Requested State in determining to which State, if any, to surrender a person whose extradition is sought by more than one State.

Article 9 - Consultation

Provides that the Parties may consult with each other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty.

Any more suggestions?

My only other suggestion is that you start a new thread entitled "Submitted: Extradition Protocol of the United Nations" when you submit it.

Otherwise you're going to get people reading the thread title and rehashing things you've already changed.

Good luck!
Do you have a list of target nations you want telegrammed?
Do you have a boilerplate telegram?
Do you have anyone signed up to participate in the telegram campaign?

I've got money riding on the passage of this, now.

My only other suggestion is that you start a new thread entitled "Submitted: Extradition Protocol of the United Nations" when you submit it.

Otherwise you're going to get people reading the thread title and rehashing things you've already changed.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice. I will do that.


Do you have a list of target nations you want telegrammed?

Yes, I have a couple of target nations. I have sent telegrams to them just this morning.

Do you have a boilerplate telegram?

What's that?

Do you have anyone signed up to participate in the telegram campaign?

Nope, no one. I just started wiring telegrams to countries just this morning. I haven't gotten any response yet.

Wish me luck.

I've got money riding on the passage of this, now.

The DLE nukes? I'll bet 2M Roquefort Cheeses. I'm so cheesy.

The proposed legislation, UN Extradition Protocol, has already been submitted.

*sigh*

go through the proposal queue, and anyone who's endorsed something you think vaguely acceptable, add to your list of people to telegram.

you're going to need to telegram 300 or more nations, so you should have a decent form letter you can cut-and-paste.

Make it formal, mention the delegate by nation name and region name, and take the time to read their country description. Find something to comment on - flag, motto, national animal, currency, population, government type... make a nice positive comment about it to let them know this isn't a script.

Post the meat of the telegram you've already sent and I'll help you with formatting and stuff.

FYI, at the present moment, the government's policy is that we refuse extradition completely, for any offence, to any nation which has executed a person in the last 10 years.

*adds Kelssek as "place to be invaded by Special Forces when extradition is requried"*

Vastiva executes on a more or less weekly schedule - we like the media to have time to set things up. Good profit from sales of the execution videos.

Any wanted criminal could hide in any of those 30k countries and it is very disappointing that you cannot punish a criminal because the other party has no extradition procedure to use.

Actually, that isn't very accurate. A lack of existing procedure doesn't mean that it cannot be done. In any case, thank you for heeding our suggestion.

*adds Kelssek as "place to be invaded by Special Forces when extradition is requried"*

*programs Vastiva's coordinates into missile launch computers*

Actually, that isn't very accurate. A lack of existing procedure doesn't mean that it cannot be done. In any case, thank you for heeding our suggestion.



*programs Vastiva's coordinates into missile launch computers*

OOC: What, we weren't there already? We feel so special!

We must ask the nations of Kelssek and Vastiva to stop this hostility. If not, we will be forced to begin tactical bombing of industrial and military centers in NeoCon Hubris until Kelssek and Vastivan forces are sufficiently subdued.

Please use weaponry that will leave the planet intact..

Please use weaponry that will leave the planet intact..

You're referring to the Planet Buster? I only have it on three ships. That's three ships out of 6813. And the cannon requires too much energy to be used for just annoyance.

In protest of this act of unbridled interplanetary imperialist warmongering from DemonLordEnigma, our SPECOT teams have kidnapped Paris Hilton and we will kill her dog in 24 hours. Not that we're holding her hostage or asking you to do anything, we just hate the stupid little rich bimbo.

Hmm. In that case, I must be getting my fleets into position. They will be using bistromathics drives to position themselves just right to launch the TEH PWNZ0R missiles straight at NeoCon.

Before the onset of the hostilities and other nations' reactions, several government officials in Krioval were found to be engaging in a three-day orgy. However, since one possesses the ability of precognition, the official response of the government has been that the orgy was begun as a preemptive protest of the degenerating relations between Vastiva and Kelssek. Further, the Kriovalian parliament is asking that Paris Hilton's life be taken in exchange for her dog's. The dog can be killed shortly thereafter.

Oh no you don't! We demand that our tourists be allowed to attend your orgy, or not only will we NOT murder Paris Hilton, we will AIRDROP HER ON YOUR NATION! MWAHAHAHAHAH! As you can see, we need some Old Janx Spirit. Let's have some of that too.

Pshaw! You do that. I'm going to enjoy a Pangalactic Gargleblaster.

OOC: Perhaps we should stop this hijack or at least move it to a new thread...

We must ask the nations of Kelssek and Vastiva to stop this hostility. If not, we will be forced to begin tactical bombing of industrial and military centers in NeoCon Hubris until Kelssek and Vastivan forces are sufficiently subdued.

*ponders that one*

*makes note about forcible invasion of Kelssek Tulip Production centers and replacing them with peonys. "Accidentally" passes it to DLE*

We would ask the representative from Kelssek why extradition to a nation which has the death penalty is so questionable to their understanding of justice.