NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize that The Anti Terrorist Act is a Key to International Security that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some Terrorist cells persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely want peace and freedom.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘Terrorist’ somebody who's uses or has the intent of committing violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, Racial Profiling; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, color or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the U.N. that they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining International Terrorists in the future.

2) DEFINE an ‘International Terrorist’ as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘International Terrorist Cell’.

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.
_________________________________________________________________
This Bill is trying to get U.N. Nations to crack down on terrorism and allow the U.N. to convict these International Terrorists (as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.) and allow Capitol punishment for theses convicted people.

Thanks for reading this I hope you post suggestion and support my bill.

Why did you write this Bill

i felt that terrorism is becoming an unstopable force

why cant U.N. nations convicted there own terrorists?

they can but they may be hold a person that is a terrorist in 10 U.N. countries but not in theres and so there law might restrict them from deaporting them so that is why the u.n. steps in

I think the base idea is good, but I have some issues with political sovereignty here. What I mean is, we capture a terrorist, but rather then being able to carry out (or not) Capital Punishment on our own terms we have to allow a "board" of UN delegates to determine how they are punished.

And well, I'm not so sure I want to allow the punishment of a terrorist who commits wrongful doing in my Nation, to be determined by people who could be against Capital Punishment.

I think the base idea is good, but I have some issues with political sovereignty here. What I mean is, we capture a terrorist, but rather then being able to carry out (or not) Capital Punishment on our own terms we have to allow a "board" of UN delegates to determine how they are punished.

And well, I'm not so sure I want to allow the punishment of a terrorist who commits wrongful doing in my Nation, to be determined by people who could be against Capital Punishment.

i found that more than 4/5 of the nations i talked to were for capitol pusishment so i think I am very safe to say you have nothing to worry about

yeah i am for capitol punishment

Along with the points Valori raised, I have a couple of things against this as well.

I think you need to rethink the bit about...

PROHIBIT member states from detaining International Terrorists in the future.

If we can't detain them, then we can't arrest them and turn them over to anyone, including the UN. Detaining a person includes taking them into custody in the first place and holding them for trial or extradition. You have effectivly outlawed that.

Also, I don't think the NSUN has a secretary general.

plus if you are unhappy with the U.N.'s ruleing your country can still try them on your own terms

i found that more than 4/5 of the nations i talked to were for capitol pusishment so i think I am very safe to say you have nothing to worry about

And what about the 1/5 of Nations against Capitol Punishment? Should they not have the right to force a guilty terrorist to rot in jail, if he commits an act of wrongful doing within their borders?

Along with the points Valori raised, I have a couple of things against this as well.

I think you need to rethink the bit about...



If we can't detain them, then we can't arrest them and turn them over to anyone, including the UN. Detaining a person includes taking them into custody in the first place and holding them for trial or extradition. You have effectivly outlawed that.

Also, I don't think the NSUN has a secretary general.
that is a good point we will call Nation States secretary general the delagete with the most endorcements and that is not what i want to say i meant to say that one country can not stop the U.N. from chargeing a International Terrorist. (Sorry)

plus if you are unhappy with the U.N.'s ruleing your country can still try them on your own terms

And not in any point or clause does this bill stipulate that.

And what about the 1/5 of Nations against Capitol Punishment? Should they not have the right to force a guilty terrorist to rot in jail, if he commits an act of wrongful doing within their borders?

There nation has that right but with an International Terroristanother country will do the (dirty work) excution.

that is right rome S

And not in any point or clause does this bill stipulate that.
I will have to change that

There nation has that right but with an International Terroristanother country will do the (dirty work) excution.

That doesn't adress my concern. Say 3 Nations are affected by one terrorist, therefore making that terrorist "international", but all 3 nations are againt Capital Punishment.

Under this act, they do not have the right to punish them how they choose. Instead a board of delegates, that's beliefs may differ from those 3 countries, decides how they are punished.

If all of the so said affected Nations are against Capital Punishment, shouldn't it be their decision as to what the Criminals punishment is.

That doesn't adress my concern. Say 3 Nations are affected by one terrorist, therefore making that terrorist "international", but all 3 nations are againt Capital Punishment.

Under this act, they do not have the right to punish them how they choose. Instead a board of delegates, that's beliefs may differ from those 3 countries, decides how they are punished.

If all of the so said affected Nations are against Capital Punishment, shouldn't it be their decision as to what the Criminals punishment is.
I will cange it to
Well then He or Him would not receive but in the previouis system he wouldn't either so instead of geting that one life sentance he would have three and ALL U.N. nations would known about him

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize that The Anti Terrorist Act is a Key to International Security that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some Terrorist cells persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely want peace and freedom.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘Terrorist’ somebody who's uses or has the intent of committing violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, Racial Profiling; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, color or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the U.N. that they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from PERMANTLY detaining International Terrorists in the future.

2) DEFINE an ‘International Terrorist’ as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘International Terrorist Cell’.

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.

I will cange it to
Well then He or Him would not receive but in the previouis system he wouldn't either so instead of geting that one life sentance he would have three and ALL U.N. nations would known about him

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify what you just said.

And this still does not adress the fact that under your Bill or Act the sovereign nations do not have the right to punish criminals as they wish. It is still up to a board of delegates that make decisions based on their beliefs rather then the best interests of affected nations.

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize that The Anti Terrorist Act is a Key to International Security that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some Terrorist cells persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely want peace and freedom.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘Terrorist’ somebody who's uses or has the intent of committing violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, Racial Profiling; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, color or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the U.N. that they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from PERMANTLY detaining International Terrorists in the future.

2) DEFINE an ‘International Terrorist’ as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘International Terrorist Cell’.

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations (if one nations want to Execute the terrorist they can) if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.

I'm about to stick another fly in the ointment :).

There is no mention in the proposal how the UN is going to try the "terrorist". It doesn't have an international court at this time, nor a police force. Where is the trial going to be held, who is going to judge it, where will the jurors come from, and where is the "terrorist" going to be held while all this is happening if nations aren't allowed to detain them and have to immediatly turn them over to a body that has no court, no prison and no police/army?

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify what you just said.

And this still does not adress the fact that under your Bill or Act the sovereign nations do not have the right to punish nations as they wish. It is still up to a board of delegates that make decisions based on their beliefs rather then the best interests of affected nations.
VERY GOOD POINT IF YOU KNOW HOW TO FIX THIS PLZ TELL ME

if one nations want to Execute the terrorist they can

So what happens if there are 3 Nations involved, and 2 are against Capital Punishment, while only one is for it. Under this additional stipulation of yours, it doesn't matter what the other 2 Nations want, because 1 Nation wants Capital Punishment.

I'm about to stick another fly in the ointment :).

There is no mention in the proposal how the UN is going to try the "terrorist". It doesn't have an international court at this time, nor a police force. Where is the trial going to be held, who is going to judge it, where will the jurors come from, and where is the "terrorist" going to be held while all this is happening if nations aren't allowed to detain them and have to immediatly turn them over to a body that has no court, no prison and no police/army?
There is no mention in the proposal how the UN is going to try the "terrorist"(ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations )

It doesn't have an international court at this time(no need any court room will work)

nor a police force (no need the counry that are effected will provide em)

who is going to judge it (The U.N. Secretary General)

and where is the "terrorist" going to be held while all this is happening if nations aren't allowed to detain ( i changed it to permantly detain)

So what happens if there are 3 Nations involved, and 2 are against Capital Punishment, while only one is for it. Under this additional stipulation of yours, it doesn't matter what the other 2 Nations want, because 1 Nation wants Capital Punishment.
i dont know but i would give the right to the nation that wants an exacution

i dont know but i would give the right to the nation that wants an exacution

So you take away the power of 2 Sovereign Nations, and allow only 1 to make the decision for all of them?

TG Me with the Problem and How you think I could Fix it

So you take away the power of 2 Sovereign Nations, and allow only 1 to make the decision for all of them?
what is your soultion???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

People Dont Tell About The Problrm Tell Me The Problem And The Soultion And I Will Fix It

There is no mention in the proposal how the UN is going to try the "terrorist"(ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations )

It doesn't have an international court at this time(no need any court room will work)

nor a police force (no need the counry that are effected will provide em)

who is going to judge it (The U.N. Secretary General)

and where is the "terrorist" going to be held while all this is happening if nations aren't allowed to detain ( i changed it to permantly detain)

That isn't justice, its revenge. Delegates from the nations concerned (and I have doubts about the legality under the propsal rules with using delegates) will not be impartial in any trial or sentence situation. We do have a fair trial resolution (and its definition) in effect now that protects the rights of any and all accused persons.

It seems to me that this proposal really doesn't care about the trial and the guilt or innocence of the accused, and is only trying to make sure that the sentence is execution no matter what.

TG Me with the Problem and How you think I could Fix it

I don't know how to fix it, I just understand that under this Act you take away the rights of Nations to determine how Terrorists are persecuted. You are allowing the decisions of one Nations, to affect all involved Nations.

You stipulate that a "board" will determine how terrorists are punished, but do not mention how the board will be made, or where it shall be held. You stipulate that a "Head of Board" will determine what happens on ties, and state that the Delegate with most endorsements will be this "Head of Board" without stipulating what will happen if this delegate doesn't want the position.

That isn't justice, its revenge. Delegates from the nations concerned (and I have doubts about the legality under the propsal rules with using delegates) will not be impartial in any trial or sentence situation. We do have a fair trial resolution (and its definition) in effect now that protects the rights of any and all accused persons.

It seems to me that this proposal really doesn't care about the trial and the guilt or innocence of the accused, and is only trying to make sure that the sentence is execution no matter what.
wELL I CAN SEE THE PROBLEM BUT WHAT IS THE SOULTION IF YOU WERE TO TELL ME I WOULD FIX IT

what is your soultion??????????????????

Also, I suggest you delete some of those question marks, seeing as they are stretching the page.

wELL I CAN SEE THE PROBLEM BUT WHAT IS THE SOULTION IF YOU WERE TO TELL ME I WOULD FIX IT

Our job is to help the proposer fix it, not to solve it. It seems to me that there is no solution here, other then not instating the Act.

We point out the problems, you fix them.

I don't know how to fix it, I just understand that under this Act you take away the rights of Nations to determine how Terrorists are persecuted. You are allowing the decisions of one Nations, to affect all involved Nations.

You stipulate that a "board" will determine how terrorists are punished, but do not mention how the board will be made, or where it shall be held. You stipulate that a "Head of Board" will determine what happens on ties, and state that the Delegate with most endorsements will be this "Head of Board" without stipulating what will happen if this delegate doesn't want the position.
ON A TIE I WILL FLIP A QUARTER

ON A TIE I WILL FLIP A QUARTER


So a mans life lies in the flipping of a quarter?

Also, I suggest you delete some of those question marks, seeing as they are stretching the page.
SORY I AM ANGRY BECAUSE YOUR ASKING ME TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT YOU CANT FIX EITHER

So a mans life lies in the flipping of a quarter?
NO TO PICK THE HEAD YOU FLIP A QUARTER

NO TO PICK THE HEAD YOU FLIP A QUARTER

So the position, of the man, who holds in his hands the decision of execution or not, is decided by a quarter?

So the position, of the man, who holds in his hands the decision of execution or not, is decided by a quarter?
FINE I WILL CHANGE IT TO A HALF DOLLAR HAPPY?

FINE I WILL CHANGE IT TO A HALF DOLLAR HAPPY?

Not only is that unneccesarily facetious, but no, because it still leaves the situation unadressed.

When this is re-written so it properly addresses sovereignty and all people involved, then I will support it. Until then,

The Republic of Valori regretfully declines all support.

I Wont Be Able Answer Any More Fo Ra While I Am Rewriteing The Bill

wELL I CAN SEE THE PROBLEM BUT WHAT IS THE SOULTION IF YOU WERE TO TELL ME I WOULD FIX IT

I can't give you concrete solutions. Its your proposal. How you want to rewrite it is up to you :).

Sorry if I sound like I'm coming down on you. I didn't mean to sound so harsh.

As Valori stated, you are taking away a nations right to sentence its own criminals under its own laws and giving that right to the UN so the "terrorist" can be executed. As I stated, I believe this whole thing is more about revenge than justice.

I don't know a solution to all that because this whole proposal something I'd never agree with. Perhaps if you made it an extradition proposal instead that uses a (can't believe I'm about to say this :p) committee to decide which nation gets to try and sentence the accused in their own nation, or if the committee thinks the accused wouldn't get a fair trial in any nations affected, they can find a nation willing to host the court case and provide an impartial jury. The issue of capital punishment is then left to the nation that is hosting the trial. Just a thought :).

i am not fully done but this has some changes

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize that The Anti Terrorist Act is a Key to International Security that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some Terrorist cells persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely want peace and freedom.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘Terrorist’ somebody who's uses or has the intent of committing violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, Racial Profiling; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, color or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the U.N. that they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from Permanently detaining International Terrorists in the future.

2) DEFINE an ‘International Terrorist’ as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘International Terrorist Cell’.

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations (if one nation want to execute the terrorist they can) if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.

ESTABLISHES International Court to hold trials for International Terrorist other International proceeding will go on there as well.

this one is even better

Description: We, the United Nations, recognize that The Anti Terrorist Act is a Key to International Security that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some Terrorist cells persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely want peace and freedom.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘Terrorist’ somebody who's uses or has the intent of committing violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, Racial Profiling; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, color or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the U.N. that they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from permanently detaining International Terrorists in the future.

2) DEFINE an ‘International Terrorist’ as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘International Terrorist Cell’.

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations (if one nation want to execute the terrorist they can) if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.

ESTABLISHES International Court to hold trials for International Terrorist other International proceeding will go on there as well. The International Court will appoint a committee of unaffected randomly selected delegates to decide which nation gets to try and sentence the accused under their own laws, or if the committee thinks the accused wouldn't get a fair trial in any nations affected, they will find a nation randomly willing to try the case and provide an impartial jury. The issue of capital punishment is then left to the nation that is jury at the trial.

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations (if one nation want to execute the terrorist they can) if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.


This one clause befuddles me. Say there are 4 Nations involved, if 1 Nation wants Capital Punishment, then the Terrorist is automatically executed. However, if 2 Nations want Capital Punishment, they have to roll a tie breaker because it's even.....

See, it makes it, so if only 1 Nation supports it, then hell you have yourself a dead terrorist, but if more then 1 Nation supports it then you have to go through a trial and decision.

It seems that it would make more sense, if Capital Punishment was decided by majority vote, if more then 2 Nations were involved.

The Holy Empire of Rathanan disagrees with this bill. If terrorists are cought within our nation, we'd want to convict and punish them under OUR law.... We feel that if we surrendered terrorists, the U.N. would go easy on them.

The Holy Empire of Rathanan disagrees with this bill. If terrorists are cought within our nation, we'd want to convict and punish them under OUR law.... We feel that if we surrendered terrorists, the U.N. would go easy on them.

Which is exactly my point.

This one clause befuddles me. Say there are 4 Nations involved, if 1 Nation wants Capital Punishment, then the Terrorist is automatically executed. However, if 2 Nations want Capital Punishment, they have to roll a tie breaker because it's even.....

See, it makes it, so if only 1 Nation supports it, then hell you have yourself a dead terrorist, but if more then 1 Nation supports it then you have to go through a trial and decision.

It seems that it would make more sense, if Capital Punishment was decided by majority vote, if more then 2 Nations were involved.
The issue of capital punishment is then left to the majority of the jury at the trial.

The Holy Empire of Rathanan disagrees with this bill. If terrorists are cought within our nation, we'd want to convict and punish them under OUR law.... We feel that if we surrendered terrorists, the U.N. would go easy on them.
this is not the real Pussy U.N. this is a hard ass online gamer U.N. where we are not afraid to make a few people angry capitol punishment will rule

that is why we only instist no tforce the handover over current terrorists

this is not the real Pussy U.N. this is a hard ass online gamer U.N. where we are not afraid to make a few people angry capitol punishment will rule

That's a great way to get support, and with that foolishly vulgar note, I leave you on your own.

Glad to see such a eloquent man leading the Region that mimics my Native land.

i have give up on this bill

Not another f***ing terrorist bill. Whatever happened to that one that outlawed terrorism (as opposed to terrorists)?

this one is even better

[QUOTE]Description: We, the United Nations, recognize that The Anti Terrorist Act is a Key to International Security that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some Terrorist cells persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely want peace and freedom.

Except of course when we like those terrorists and call them "freedom fighters"

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘Terrorist’ somebody who's uses or has the intent of committing violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes,

Not bad

not for use of, nor encouragement to use, Racial Profiling; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent;

Make this a seperate clause. You're saying what you don't want nations or people to do, but it has nothing to do with the definition of terrorists

but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, color or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the U.N. that they are currently detaining and

This doesn't look good. Sounds like another committee - let's see how well this one works

PROHIBIT member states from permanently detaining International Terrorists in the future.

Combine the last two to get:
"MANDATES that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any International Terrorist to the UN that they detain in the past or future" or something like that

2) DEFINE an ‘International Terrorist’ as a person who has committed or assisted in Terrorism in two or more U.N. Member nations.

....fine, I'll let that slide. It ain't great, but I'll let it slide (basically, by this definition, the IRA would be an International terrorist group.....)

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘International Terrorist Cell’.

This doesn't make any sense. Just because we have a few International Terrorists, doesn't mean we're know where his buddies are. Perhaps "shall share any relevant intelligence information pertaining to any detained International Terrorist"

ALLOW Capitol Punishment for any ‘International Terrorist’ to be decided by a panel of U.N. Delegates from the affected nations (if one nation want to execute the terrorist they can) if an even number The U.N. Secretary General will assume the roll of a “Tie Breaker” Vote.

1, 2, maybe 3 points of illegality here.
1) You can't design a committee out of UN Delegates. It's illegal

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Considering Hack is the General Secretary, that part is out too (the maybe illegal 3 part)

2) Combined with the above "all international terrorists must be given to the UN" thing, you are contradicting a previous resolution:

Right to Refuse Extradition


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Saint Uriel

Description : ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

Votes For : 10,746

Votes Against : 4,468

Implemented : Fri May 20 2005

Therefore.....I have the right to refuse extradition to the UN (and I will) if Capital punishment will be a possible punishment.

ESTABLISHES International Court to hold trials for International Terrorist

Sentence ends here. Actually, fix up the grammar perios (Establishes AN)

other International proceeding will go on there as well.

Except Genocide discussions (TPP)

The International Court will appoint a committee of unaffected (of) randomly selected delegates to decide which nation (will) try and sentence the accused under their own laws, or (comma - of put the section in brackets) if the committee thinks the accused wouldn't get a fair trial in any nations affected, they will find a nation randomly (that's) willing to try the case and provide an impartial jury.

Aside from the delegates thing, just needs editing (beyond what I did)

The issue of capital punishment is then left to the nation that is jury at the trial.

No

-------------------------------------
1) EDIT. For the love of God, edit this.
2) You've gotta remove capital punishment - or let nations add a stipulation about capital punishment (insofar as saying that capital punishment cannot be used).
3) Honestly, what were you thinking adding delegates? Delegates (aside from the fact that this has a game) have a country to run, represent their region in the largest Internation Organization, and have a lot of other issues to worry about (such as spamming of the inboxes with bad proposal endorsement requests). Add on that there are 36000 UN member, 130000 nations, and god knows how many MILLIONS of International Terrorists. If each member nation was successful at getting an International Terrorist every week, that's about 5000 people that the UN Delegates have to process each day. Representatives from delegate nations, fine (in fact, likely legal), but delegates themselves?

i have give up on this bill

Calm down, then come back when you're a bit better suited for the criticism (not to mention, I just shot half of it to hell as illegal)

Clean the bill up, make a clause that clarifies everything, and make it so it's no longer illegal and the bill may eventually pass. However, I don't know about it's sucess seeing that the only option seemed to be Capital Punishment.

Two more thoughts on the proposal:

1) Rename to International Terrorist Act - because it addresses how International Terrorists should be treated
2) If we were to consider International Terrorists to only be people who have conducted or assisted in two terrorist acts....that's not a lot of people in the real world - and certainly a very small percentage of actual International Terrorists. In fact, most of the people involved in 9/11 would not be on the list (I can think of one, arguably 2 - the second being Osama...... but he did little in the actual assisting or committing of the act). How about known active members of International Terrorist groups instead

they can but they may be hold a person that is a terrorist in 10 U.N. countries but not in theres and so there law might restrict them from deaporting them so that is why the u.n. steps in


Here you have said Deporting them which means Extradiction. Resolution 103 Right to Refuse Extradition comes in here...

Again for those who may have missed it here...
Resolution #103
Right to Refuse Extradition


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Saint Uriel

Description : ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation


This is key here as the new propals indicates that this so called Terrorists has gone into a member nation. Thus he is a fugitive having left a place where he was wanted for Terrirorists Acts... Thus a Request for Extradtion needs to be made between the nations involved.. and the nation where he has fled to MAY REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT... THE FUGITIVE MAY FACE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IF EXTRADITED.. can on that alone under 103 Refuse to Extradite that fugitive.. By the part of the new proposal one would REASONABLY believe that the UN ALLOW Capitat Punishment means they could also apply it to a Terrorist who is only to the nations involved a Fugitive because he committed certain crimes in one nation and went to the other.. Thus we can hold them and give them over or not.. because we believe the UN might hang them.. We don't even have to say which way we might go toward hanging them ourselves on any number of crimes in our nation they may have violated that would ger them Capital Punishment. As this new resolution Allows it and 103 also allows it. All this does to me is move where we hang a person.. I'd rather know it was done right and do it with our rope and from our trees.


AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

Also this one lets me refuse to try them on my land in my court as a party to execution (going back up in 103 for those who missed it) ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution).. so we don't have to have them tried in out nation... and another Refuses to Extradite them..... and the UN can't under 103 do a thing about it. As the UN has AFFIRMED these rights... to REFUSE to EXTRADITE and also to be a PARTY to..

I liked Hirota's proposal much better. It can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432143

I don't agree with this Bill. Some of it seemed a little vague, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your saying that punishment of terrorists should be left entirely up to this board of the UN, and the power to punish said terrorists would be taken out of the hands of the captors entirely. This I cannot agree with; each nation should be allowed to defend themselves as they see fit (unless those means of defense strongly affect several other nations in a negative way). I do however, think there is something worthwhile in forming a board of the UN to keep track of world terrorists and therefore alert all other nations to what is happening with them and how it might affect others.

I'd like to suggest the creation of a Board including at least one representative from every member nation (or maybe from each region) of the UN. This Board (called the UN Board of National Defense, or UNBOND) would be charged with retrieving information on problem terrorists from each member nation and would hold all said information on record. Basically it would be like a massive kind of "Neighborhood Watch." When dangerous terrorists that effected more than one nation were apprehended by any country, that nation (henceforth known as the "captor nation") would give a full report of the terrorist's past offenses, why they pose a threat to the nation(s), and what that nation intends to do about that threat. Then the Board could review the report and take a vote to determine whether or not the terrorist is significant enough to give world-wide attention to. If so, they could then take a vote to poll whether or not the other nations thought that the captor nation (meaning the country who held the prisoner) was taking enough action to deal with and properly punish the criminal. If the vote proved that the terrorist would still be a threat after the captor nation already "dealt with it", the Board would reserve the right to step in and take control of the matter. This way, the Board would serve as a kind of monitor and back-up security system in case any nation proved inadequate in dealing with an international problem. And if the rest of the world decided that the terrorist was not an international threat, the Board would not have to waste time and energy in dealing with it; the captor nation would sufficiently take care of the situation on their own.
So what do you think? I'd appreciate feedback.
_Prime Minister of Barad-Du