NationStates Jolt Archive

As it seems that the resolution regarding extradition right is going to pass, I would like take this oppurtunity, while your primary attention is still being given to the resolution, to inform all nations that voted against the aforementioned resolution that I will immediately be setting forth a proposal to repeal said resolution under the following argument:

RECOGNIZING the existence of the "Definition of Fair Trial" resolution;
NOTING that this resolution states that a criminal has the ability to deny the right to be tried in the venue where he committed the crime;
RECOGNIZING FURTHER the existence of the "Right to Refuse Extradition" resolution;
NOTING FURTHER a loophole created by the coexistance of these two resolutions that allows a criminal to effectually decide how he is sentenced;
THIS MUST BE REPEALED for the aforementioned reasons.

Full Explanation of Loophole:
Due to the "Right to Refuse Extradition" resolution, any nation has it within their power to protect criminals of the highest caliber from the death penalty without fear of military reprisal. This would be nullified by the United Nations' definition of a fair trial partly as taking place at the venue where the crime was committed, but the same document expressly states that the criminal can waive this right. In effect, a criminal from one nation could murder a large number of people in a pro death penalty nation and then flee to their home nation, at which point their home nation could deny the offended nation the right to try the criminal on the grounds that he might be put to death. The criminal could then decide whether he wanted to return in accordance with the "Definition of Fair Trial" resolution, or use the same resolution's ability to waive this right and instead face a less harsh sentencing. Criminals must not be allowed to decide their own punishments, and therefore the latter of the two resolutions involved in this loophole, the "Right to Refuse Extradition," must be removed from international legislature.

As it seems that the resolution regarding extradition right is going to pass, I would like take this oppurtunity, while your primary attention is still being given to the resolution, to inform all nations that voted against the aforementioned resolution that I will immediately be setting forth a proposal to repeal said resolution under the following argument:

Fatus Maximus has no death penalty. Why should we turn our criminals over to you so you can kill them?

Starting a repeal before a resolution even passes? Dear Gods. In any case, Krioval will not act in any favorable way toward this proposal, especially since it is based on a very basic fraud. The resolution under debate, if passed, would not allow criminals to be harbored at will, or at least no moreso than currently exists. Besides, the way to get around this is to simply agree not to pursue the death penalty, making the current resolution no longer relevant to the extradition proceedings.

Krioval already decides to whom it will and will not extradite criminals anyway. The resolution under discussion simply mandates that invading another country for refusing to extradite someone to their death is improper. That it threatens a nation that has repeatedly indicated belligerence toward other nations is not a high concern of mine, or of Krioval's.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Alright, A: This is not meant to be a place to debate the repeal, it is meant to let people that are as vehemently against it as I am that I will be repealing this resolution in 2 days when it inevitably passes. B: Krioval, it does exactly what I said it does and more, and I have explained arduously the manner in which it does these things. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, but if you refuse to listen to reason, I cannot make you understand.

By the way, Fatus, apparently you've been mislead on the details of this resolution. You're not handing over your criminals, you're handing over our criminals that you apprehended, be it by circumstance or superior police forces.

There is no fact, not when there are nations consisting entirely of Buddhist monks who do not believe in punishment whatsoever, and would refuse to extradite any criminals they may have produced to any country. Who's to say they are wrong? There is only opinion.

Alright, A: This is not meant to be a place to debate the repeal, it is meant to let people that are as vehemently against it as I am that I will be repealing this resolution in 2 days when it inevitably passes. B: Krioval, it does exactly what I said it does and more, and I have explained arduously the manner in which it does these things. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, but if you refuse to listen to reason, I cannot make you understand.

Just because you can claim something doesn't make it a statement of fact. There is currently absolutely no compulsion for Krioval to extradite to anyone it doesn't want to. All this resolution would do is to annul the threat of military invasion if a nation wishes to refuse extradition on basis of capital punishment for that specific individual. Waiving right to venue for a trial doesn't mean that a stronger power can't still force the trial to be held in its original venue - it means that the defendant has determined that he or she doesn't care where it's held. It doesn't mean a trail can't be held.

Do try to keep up here. Intentional ignorance is not a virtue.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Just because you can claim something doesn't make it a statement of fact. There is currently absolutely no compulsion for Krioval to extradite to anyone it doesn't want to. All this resolution would do is to annul the threat of military invasion if a nation wishes to refuse extradition on basis of capital punishment for that specific individual. Waiving right to venue for a trial doesn't mean that a stronger power can't still force the trial to be held in its original venue - it means that the defendant has determined that he or she doesn't care where it's held. It doesn't mean a trail can't be held.

Do try to keep up here. Intentional ignorance is not a virtue.

There is no fact, not when there are nations consisting entirely of Buddhist monks who do not believe in punishment whatsoever, and would refuse to extradite any criminals they may have produced to any country. Who's to say they are wrong? There is only opinion.
Okay, my fellow nations, here we go. Who should I explain things to, first? Okay, I'll go with Fatus.
Fatus, again you obviously do not understand what the people around you are saying. With regards to my original comment about what Krioval, I was referring to the fact that extreme abuse is a possibility and that, due to the coming resolution, it is made more effective by a factor of ten. Read the information I posted before forming opinions; it's all fact. I never said that the death penalty being the correct option was a matter of fact.
Krioval, I'll try to explain this to you in a manner in which I would explain something to a student I tutor. You see, there's this one law, right? And it does this one thing, but this one party which this one law refers to can nullify this one thing. And there's this new law, that says this one thing can be done that directly relates to the first law. Now, if the first law is used, the second law comes into play, but if the aforementioned party chooses, he can disregard this second law. Make sense? And, as far as your explanation of venue is concerned, the stronger power can't force the venue to be returned to the place where the crime was committed under this new resolution. That's the whole point I'm trying to make here. And I never said a trial couldn't be held, only that the offended nation couldn't hold it in the way they saw fit, but, as usual, you respond blindly to my arguments instead of actually reading them.

Good luck passing your resolution repeal. Its a lot of work, as Saint Uriel found out, but its a good way to learn about the NSUN and politics. Its also pretty gratifying and we think you'll enjoy it. We are sorry that things got less than civil between us earlier. Again, best of luck

Thank you, I think. I hope your tone isn't sarcastic, as I could see a less mature person voting down the proposal because they have a grudge against its author, but I (perhaps gullably) believe that you are being sincere, and so I thank you for the luck.

You're right, I'm being sincere. I, of course, am not going to vote for the repeal of my own proposal, but I did mean the well wishes. You'll like looking at the number of votes everyday and silently rooting your side on, just as I do. Its almost like an election year. Anyway, good luck.

And, in your case, it was like looking at an election year where your candidate won, and then some whiny [expletive deleted] tried to dispute it. I regret that this whiny [expletive deleted] has to be me, and thank you once more for the good luck.

By the way, if you have any suggestions on how to make my proposal more fair or more reasonable, let me know; wish I could have been there to do that for your proposal.

While we voted against the extradition proposal, we will not support its repeal for the flawed reasons you mention. We voted against it because it is superfluous and doesn't grant anyone any right they don't already have.

Actually, it does, if you read the scenario and fully comprehend the manner in which it can be used in accordance with "Definition of Fair Trial." Unless you would care to explain why the scenario is impossible and how this combination can't do exactly what I stated it could do, in which case I will dismiss my proposal.

I'll endorse this absolutely if the Right to Refuse Extradition is passed. Criminals are criminals. The only right they should have is to a lawyer and a clean cell while their sentence is being deliberated.

Actually, it does, if you read the scenario and fully comprehend the manner in which it can be used in accordance with "Definition of Fair Trial." Unless you would care to explain why the scenario is impossible and how this combination can't do exactly what I stated it could do, in which case I will dismiss my proposal.

What you claim can happen can happen without this resolution anyway. Even if you repeal the resolution, Fass can refuse, as we always do, to extradite to a country where the death penalty is applicable. The prisoner would still be able to use or waive his rights under "Fair trial" regardless of the existence of the refusal of extradition resolution.

As we said, this resolution gives nothing anybody doesn't already have.

What you claim can happen can happen without this resolution anyway. Even if you repeal the resolution, Fass can refuse, as we always do, to extradite to a country where the death penalty is applicable. The prisoner would still be able to use or waive his rights under "Fair trial" regardless of the existence of the refusal of extradition resolution.

As we said, this resolution gives nothing anybody doesn't already have.
Right, you can already do all that, but you can't do all that without fear of military reprisal, and military reprisal is exactly what someone attempting that should recieve. That's what is new.

Right, you can already do all that, but you can't do all that without fear of military reprisal, and military reprisal is exactly what someone attempting that should recieve. That's what is new.

We as a neutral nation, and also as a nation out of reach of most "military reprisals", have nothing to fear in that respect.

Your whole reason for repealing this resolution is, however, not based on the part on military reprisal, but on this flawed reasoning around the rights under "Fair trial". And thus your whole reasoning for the repeal is invalid.

What "flawed reasoning" with respect to "Definition of Fair Trial." Please, I'm eager to see where my reasoning is flawed when all I stated were the facts of both documents and very real repercussions of each.

What "flawed reasoning" with respect to "Definition of Fair Trial." Please, I'm eager to see where my reasoning is flawed when all I stated were the facts of both documents and very real repercussions of each.

The flawed reasoning lies in the allusion (if not the outright statement) to that the repercussions are there because of this resolution. They are not. They were there before, and they will remain even should it be repealed. Your whole reasoning for the repeal is flawed, and you thus lack a reason for repeal.

The rights under "Fair trial" have always had this repercussion. A repercussion that is also very minor and actually not that horribly negative at all.

I see what you are saying, now; however, what I say in the proposal is that the two resolutions, when combined, create a different loophole, and reinforce both. The new loophole is not same as the old. I'll explain.

Without this second resolution, two things could happen: the nation could extradite, or the nation could keep the prisoner and the offended nation could evoke the "Definition of Fair Trial" resolution. At this point, the criminal could still have waived the right, but if the criminal waived the right and the nation refused to extradite him, the offended nation could extract him by physical means.

The situation is going to be different soon. Now if a nation decides to protect said criminal from capital punishment, the offended nation cannot retaliate. Now a major problem is created. The criminal is now the only party involved that can decide which punishment he will recieve, as he can either evoke "Definition of Fair Trial," and return to have his life ended, or he can waive his right in said resolution, and allow the nation holding him to continue enforcement of their "Right to Refuse Extradition." Obviously the "Definition of Fair Trial" is going to be the overriding resolution, as it has seniority, and so the criminal is quite effectually put in complete control of his fate.

Hopefully this clears things up a little bit.

I see what you are saying, now; however, what I say in the proposal is that the two resolutions, when combined, create a different loophole, and reinforce both. The new loophole is not same as the old. I'll explain.

Without this second resolution, two things could happen: the nation could extradite, or the nation could keep the prisoner and the offended nation could evoke the "Definition of Fair Trial" resolution. At this point, the criminal could still have waived the right, but if the criminal waived the right and the nation refused to extradite him, the offended nation could extract him by physical means.

The situation is going to be different soon. Now if a nation decides to protect said criminal from capital punishment, the offended nation cannot retaliate. Now a major problem is created. The criminal is now the only party involved that can decide which punishment he will recieve, as he can either evoke "Definition of Fair Trial," and return to have his life ended, or he can waive his right in said resolution, and allow the nation holding him to continue enforcement of their "Right to Refuse Extradition." Obviously the "Definition of Fair Trial" is going to be the overriding resolution, as it has seniority, and so the criminal is quite effectually put in complete control of his fate.

Hopefully this clears things up a little bit.

Which makes your gripe about this resolution lie not in the "loop hole" (which has always been there), but in the "no military retaliation" clause. But you are not building your repeal on that. You are building it on a "loop hole" (which isn't really a loop hole at all, as it is an intended consequence of "Fair Trial" as the whole resolution is about giving criminal suspects rights, and which you seem to be blaming them for) that is irrelevant to this resolution.

In any case, the government refusing extradition doesn't have to take the venue clause into consideration even if the criminal hasn't waved it, as that right can only be fulfilled and respected by the government of the nation that the crime was committed in and where the actual trial would take place.

Which makes your gripe about this resolution lie not in the "loop hole" (which has always been there), but in the "no military retaliation" clause. But you are not building your repeal on that. You are building it on a "loop hole" (which isn't really a loop hole at all, as it is an intended consequence of "Fair Trial" as the whole resolution is about giving criminal suspects rights, and which you seem to be blaming them for) that is irrelevant to this resolution.
On the contrary, the no military retaliation clause is what, for lack of a better word, widens the loophole, and it is a partial basis for my repeal.

In any case, the government refusing extradition doesn't have to take the venue clause into consideration even if the criminal hasn't waved it, as that right can only be fulfilled and respected by the government of the nation that the crime was committed in and where the actual trial would take place.
Actually that right applies across the UN, being a UN resolution, not just when dealing inside an offended nation's borders.

On the contrary, the no military retaliation clause is what, for lack of a better word, widens the loophole, and it is a partial basis for my repeal.

Again, it is not a loop hole as it is an intended consequence of the Fair Trial resolution. And it does not exist in the resolution you are attempting to repeal, nor is it in any way contingent upon it.

Actually that right applies across the UN, being a UN resolution, not just when dealing inside an offended nation's borders.

The nation that isn't staging the trial and that does not have access (volontarily or not) to the venue, doesn't have to and/or cannot be expected to abide by the venue clause. That is a loop hole, my dear, in the "Fair Trial" resolution. The UN has not abolished jurisdictions, as the resolution you are trying to repeal would prove.

Fass is right- it's not a loophole, it's an intentional consequence. One that I like. Beyond the death penalty issue, if your nation's courts are notoriously corrupt and are going to find a guilty verdict no matter how innocent the suspects are, I don't want to hand them over. The fact that my nation can't be invaded because of it is a good thing in my opinion.

As it seems that the resolution regarding extradition right is going to pass, I would like take this oppurtunity, while your primary attention is still being given to the resolution, to inform all nations that voted against the aforementioned resolution that I will immediately be setting forth a proposal to repeal said resolution under the following argument:

I checked over your argument. I have to say, you seem a very paranoid nation.

On the one hand - if a person kills a bunch of people in your nation (unlikely) and then decides to move back to his nation - and manages to do so without being caught (also unlikely) and the nation decides that they don't wish for capital punishment (still not terribly likely), that nation can still imprison or convict him themselves, sans death penalty.

On the other hand, if he's hired by that nation to go into your nation and kill a bunch of people, as you seem to be edging towards, that construes an act of war. You're not really pinioned under any helpless loophole here. The resolution does exactly what it says it does and doesn't ordain this kind of weird political murder scam you have in your head.

Fatus Maximus has no death penalty. Why should we turn our criminals over to you so you can kill them?
Because they are not your citizens, and its none of your business as to how a nation deals with its prisoners.

Because they are not your citizens, and its none of your business as to how a nation deals with its prisoners.

Which might actually be relevant if they were, in fact, their home nation's prisoners at the time of capture, now wouldn't it? But they're not.

What it the issue is in our minds is this.

The Death Sentence is allowed by the UN. This is a matter of internal policy for each nation to decide for themselves. This we all know and has been agreed on.

The problem with the “right to refuse extradition” resolution is that it allows another nation to nullify another’s right to execute is criminals. This is a direct violation of a nations right.

I have heard the argument that a nation is being force to support the death penalty by turning over another nations citizen for a trial that might lead to the death penalty. I agree with this point, however, the clause in the resolution that prohibits a nation from enforcing its right of putting its own citizens on trial and executing them directly infringes on that nations rights.

So basically you are telling a nation that you have the right to allow the death sentence unless we disagree. What?!?

We say remove the “without fear of military reprisal” clause. If a nation feels so strongly against the death penalty they should be ready to face whatever consequences befall them. No nation should be allowed to take away another rights, especially a right allowed by the UN.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

To me it's not about the death penalty. Amnalos has laws that allow capital punishment, but the last execution was eighteen years ago. So it's fair to say Amnalos is indifferent to the death penalty.

What is unacceptable to my nation is the idea that another nation can harbor a criminal wanted for crimes committed in Amnalos. I'm perfectly happy to negotiate, and usually be prepared to allow the criminal to be tried and punished in the other nation but if the other nation deliberately obstructs the Amnalite justice system, I demand the right to extract the fugitive by military force.

I would definitely vote for the repeal.

Darkumbria will always entridite a criminal to the country of the crime, regardless of the consequences. As well, the Justice caste has always given fair trial. I see no point in discussing the matter further.

Again, it is not a loop hole as it is an intended consequence of the Fair Trial resolution. And it does not exist in the resolution you are attempting to repeal, nor is it in any way contingent upon it.
The nation that isn't staging the trial and that does not have access (volontarily or not) to the venue, doesn't have to and/or cannot be expected to abide by the venue clause. That is a loop hole, my dear, in the "Fair Trial" resolution. The UN has not abolished jurisdictions, as the resolution you are trying to repeal would prove.
Again, you misunderstand what I am calling a loophole here, Fass. The loophole isn't in the possibility of the action itself... I'm not some radical calling all obscure possibilities loopholes... it's in the fact that their is a possibility of underhanded actions that are internationally protected thanks to this resolution.
I checked over your argument. I have to say, you seem a very paranoid nation.

On the one hand - if a person kills a bunch of people in your nation (unlikely) and then decides to move back to his nation - and manages to do so without being caught (also unlikely) and the nation decides that they don't wish for capital punishment (still not terribly likely), that nation can still imprison or convict him themselves, sans death penalty.

On the other hand, if he's hired by that nation to go into your nation and kill a bunch of people, as you seem to be edging towards, that construes an act of war. You're not really pinioned under any helpless loophole here. The resolution does exactly what it says it does and doesn't ordain this kind of weird political murder scam you have in your head.
I never said he was hired by that nation, just that he was a part of it - then it's not an act of war. And the above scenario is hardly as unlikely as you seem to think it is, someone could easily kill a few people covertly and skip town before authorities knew what happened, in which case he left the country legally and there was no reason why he wouldn't have been able to leave. Now, that normally wouldn't help him, because we'd just go after his ass when we did find out - assuming the nation he fled to didn't return him for the sake of being a good neighbor - but, unfortunately, the resolution that I will be trying to repeal takes away this course of action.

One that I like. Beyond the death penalty issue, if your nation's courts are notoriously corrupt and are going to find a guilty verdict no matter how innocent the suspects are, I don't want to hand them over. The fact that my nation can't be invaded because of it is a good thing in my opinion.
Fatus, do you ever say anything relevant? Are you saying that if my nation's courts were notoriously corrupt and might sentence the death penalty unjustly, you wouldn't mind returning him to be sentenced to life? Because that's your only option here. This is a completely different scenario; if a nation were widely known to engage in such unscrupulous trials, I would hope the UN would forcefully revamp my legal system.

Again, you misunderstand what I am calling a loophole here, Fass. The loophole isn't in the possibility of the action itself... I'm not some radical calling all obscure possibilities loopholes... it's in the fact that their is a possibility of underhanded actions that are internationally protected thanks to this resolution.

There is nothing underhanded about it, as it is an intended consequence of "Fair Trial." Again, a consequence that is in no way affected by the existence of the Right to Refuse Extradition resolution, but one that is there purely and intentionally because of "Fair Trial". You are complaining mostly about the "no military retaliation" part, it seems, as the whole "loop hole" business isn't relevant to this resolution.

Fatus, do you ever say anything relevant?

That sort of quip isn't going to exactly make people more inclined to agree with you.

Are you saying that if my nation's courts were notoriously corrupt and might sentence the death penalty unjustly, you wouldn't mind returning him to be sentenced to life? Because that's your only option here.

No, it isn't. Nations have the right to refuse any sort of extradition for any sort of reason. That's why this current proposal is superfluous, and why we voted against it. Although we are starting to change our mind on that, as you have demonstrated to us that there are actually nations out there willing to use military force to violate the integrity of another nation and force their jurisdictions on them. That stance is making us favourable to this resolution, as weaker nations would need this protection to stand up against bully regimes.

We say remove the “without fear of military reprisal” clause. If a nation feels so strongly against the death penalty they should be ready to face whatever consequences befall them.

Uh, let me get this straight. You're saying that in order to prevent state sanctioned murder a nation should be prepared to enter a war that could kill thousands of innocent people?

Explain your logic?

[EDIT: And the "without fear of military reprisal" clause is the resolution.]

That's why this current proposal is superfluous, and why we voted against it. Although we are starting to change our mind on that, as you have demonstrated to us that there are actually nations out there willing to use military force to violate the integrity of another nation and force their jurisdiction.
Wow. A potential repeal actually reinforced pro votes for the original resolution. Thanks Rogue Newbie, we sane ones appreciate the support.

No, it isn't. Nations have the right to refuse any sort of extradition for any sort of reason. That's why this current proposal is superfluous, and why we voted against it.

Not without fear of military reprisal.

Although we are starting to change our mind on that, as you have demonstrated to us that there are actually nations out there willing to use military force to violate the integrity of another nation and force their jurisdictions on them. That stance is making us favourable to this resolution, as weaker nations would need this protection to stand up against bully regimes.

The point is that the criminal's trial is within our jurisdiction, and this resolution stands to impose on said jurisdiction. By preventing a criminal from recieving justice in the opinion of the nation he offends, this resolution imposes on our integrity.

There is nothing underhanded about it, as it is an intended consequence of "Fair Trial." Again, a consequence that is in no way affected by the existence of the Right to Refuse Extradition resolution, but one that is there purely and intentionally because of "Fair Trial". You are complaining mostly about the "no military retaliation" part, it seems, as the whole "loop hole" business isn't relevant to this resolution.
Wrong. The "Definition of Fair Trial" does not intend to forcefully protect criminals that are trying to ignore the benefit of the resolution.