NationStates Jolt Archive

Listen fellow delegates, I won't go into a whole song and dance with you. I'm not going to politic and get on a soapbox here, I want to address you all as equals so lets be frank.

We play a game where there is, supposedly, 1,299,999 other nations out there who want nothing more than to dominate, win, and spread there hegemony throught the site. If they have the right to go after you, invade your region, and cause a bunch of trouble, you should have the right to fight back, right? Wrong. Resolution #10 eliminates the right of your nations police force to gather information on known or suspect terrorists, informats, or conspirators. It makes the police go to your courts each time they want to bug a criminals house or look at his/her e-mail.

Not only will this tie up the court system, depriving regular citizens of their right to a far trial, but terrorism doesn't wait 5 months while the chief of police is tied up in a mountain of court proceedure or paperwork.

Honestly? The police may make some mistakes and some rights may be abridges. But what is more important? The rights of a handful or the lives of a million? I have included a copy of the text below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aware that forcing the police authority of a nation to constantly seek the permission of the courts is a colassal waste of time, and

Convinced that terrorists will not wait 5 months while the court reveiws the police's request to bug the telephones of their dwelling, and

Further aware of constant threats such as, nano-terrorism, eco-terrorism, and cyber-terrorism which require constant police monitoring to ensure the safety of millions of people as well as possible billions of dollars, and

Whereas the safety of millions of innocent civilians outweighs the rights of a few conspirators, and

Further aware of the vulnerability of water plants, nuclear facilities, and other spots deemed threats by the nation itself, and

Recognizing with terrorism everywhere, so many claims made by police would flood the judical system, making it impossible to serve the other citizens and denying THEM of the right of a fair and speedy trial.

Therefore, be it resolved by the United Nations gahered here today that...
------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution "Stop Privacy Intrusion" is henceforth repealed, allowing police to once more use any means to find known or suspected criminals, terrorists, or other conspirators which may do unknown harm and damage to the nation. All acts by the police will, of course, take place with the full knowledge and consent of the governing authority.

Listen fellow delegates, I won't go into a whole song and dance with you. I'm not going to politic and get on a soapbox here, I want to address you all as equals so lets be frank.

You just stood up on the soapbox, whether you like it or not.

We play a game where there is, supposedly, 1,299,999 other nations out there who want nothing more than to dominate, win, and spread there hegemony throught the site. If they have the right to go after you, invade your region, and cause a bunch of trouble, you should have the right to fight back, right? Wrong.

Depends on who "they" is. If we're speaking of terrorists, yes. If we're speaking of nations, HECK yes.

Resolution #10 eliminates the right of your nations police force to gather information on known or suspect terrorists, informats, or conspirators. It makes the police go to your courts each time they want to bug a criminals house or look at his/her e-mail.

Standard procedure in just about every industrialized nation except those that went extreme when it came to terrorism. Amazingly, this procedure was not the limitation on the FBI from stopping 9/11, it was plain incompetence, mismanagement, poor communication (inter and intra) and questionable practices.

Not only will this tie up the court system, depriving regular citizens of their right to a far trial,

If you had said speedy, I might buy it. However, fair is far from the problem. That said, these issues are far from slowing down the judicial system, if you have enough judges.

but terrorism doesn't wait 5 months while the chief of police is tied up in a mountain of court proceedure or paperwork.

And yet we can manage to get most of these warrants and whatnot with this system in place in the real world in a matter of hours in most cases, sometimes (in extreme cases) days

Honestly? The police may make some mistakes and some rights may be abridges. But what is more important? The rights of a handful or the lives of a million?

I would rather a guilty man walk free than put an innocent man in jail

I have included a copy of the text below.

Good

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aware that forcing the police authority of a nation to constantly seek the permission of the courts is a colassal waste of time, and

Not to mention standard procedure in industrialized nations

Convinced that terrorists will not wait 5 months while the court reveiws the police's request to bug the telephones of their dwelling, and

You obviously don't have a clue about normal legal systems

Further aware of constant threats such as, nano-terrorism, eco-terrorism, and cyber-terrorism which require constant police monitoring to ensure the safety of millions of people as well as possible billions of dollars, and

None of which require extraordinary measures or powers granted to the police force. The Internet is a public area for police to constantly monitor as they see fit. Eco-terrorism is generally committed in public territory or even national propoerty. I have yet to hear of an actual case of nano-terrorism, nor do I have a clue how it would be better combatted by Police being given extra powers

Whereas the safety of millions of innocent civilians outweighs the rights of a few conspirators, and

The rights of millions of innocent civilians outweights the punishment of a few conspirators (BTW - most cyber-terrorism is conducted solo)

Further aware of the vulnerability of water plants, nuclear facilities, and other spots deemed threats by the nation itself, and

Wow, that seems totally irrelevant. How is it that these locations' vulnerability means that police need more powers?

Recognizing with terrorism everywhere, so many claims made by police would flood the judical system, making it impossible to serve the other citizens and denying THEM of the right of a fair and speedy trial.

You've gotta be ****ing kidding me!

Therefore, be it resolved by the United Nations gahered here today that...

This repeal be panned

------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution "Stop Privacy Intrusion" is henceforth repealed, allowing police to once more use any means to find known or suspected criminals, terrorists, or other conspirators which may do unknown harm and damage to the nation. All acts by the police will, of course, take place with the full knowledge and consent of the governing authority.

DENIED.

I myself find the police can move quickly when they want to, I have yet to hear a request from my police that they are being bogged down by paperwork from the courts. I will not vote for this, I would have fair trials rather then speed... well not if it involves me or my politcal rivals but thats a diffrent matter.

Would it kill people posting repeals to quote the resolution they want to repeal. Granted I've been around long enough to know from the argument exactly which resolution is being targeted, but it makes the entire debate a hell of a lot easier to just post the resolution as a quote. I'd do it now, but I'm both lazy and in a hurry to be somewhere I was supposed to be ten minutes ago.

Here it is.
Stop privacy intrusion

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Petkania

Description: We feel alarmed by the increasing intrusion of privacy by the governments in the world. Therefore, we propose that legislation is passed by each UN member that all personal communication, including, but not limited to:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed.
No support for your repeal by the way. This resolution is not impeding our security services in any way, and we're classified a police state by the UN. Perhaps you should make improvements to your own internal security apparatus, courts, etc.

Usually I'm all over the repeals - but not this one.

Just a straight-up thumbs-down on that one.

"Resolution #10 eliminates the right of your nations police force to gather information on known or suspect terrorists, informats, or conspirators. It makes the police go to your courts each time they want to bug a criminals house or look at his/her e-mail."

Correct, it does this because if you let the police intefere recklessly in private affairs, however shady, then you undermine the key cornerstone of the right to privacy, a key civil liberty. The courts are arbiters of the justice system and ensure that proper legal safeguards are to be followed prior to beginning the surveillance.

"Aware that forcing the police authority of a nation to constantly seek the permission of the courts is a colassal waste of time"

This very much depends on the efficiency and promptness of the police, not the courts.

"Further aware of the vulnerability of water plants, nuclear facilities, and other spots deemed threats by the nation itself, and

Recognizing with terrorism everywhere, so many claims made by police would flood the judical system, making it impossible to serve the other citizens and denying THEM of the right of a fair and speedy trial."

Terrorism everywhere, is the sort of statement that reeks of hyperbole. Equally, if getting the permission of the courts is such a waste of time, how about eliminating trials, I mean, we know they're guilty as hell, so why waste time trying them? Or for that matter, why even charge them, just arrest them and be done with it.

This is the sort of knee-jerk, reactionary set of rationales that so tragically is increasingly prevelant these days. When we start eroding the boundaries of our free and democratic societies, on the grounds of a temporary threat, we risk losing everything, including these rights. We lose our moral high ground if we behave like dictators in order to prevent democracy being destroyed; because it shows us to be mere hypocrites.

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

Adlai Stevenson

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Quote:
You just stood up on the soapbox, whether you like it or not.

Perhaps but I don't sound like a used car salesman trying to pitch you an idea. I'm not coming to you on knees begging for your approval like most.

Quote:
Standard procedure in just about every industrialized nation except those that went extreme when it came to terrorism. Amazingly, this procedure was not the limitation on the FBI from stopping 9/11, it was plain incompetence, mismanagement, poor communication (inter and intra) and questionable practices.

What? 9/11? Crusader's Kingdom is not familar with this 9/11 of which you speak of, perhaps you're thinking of a different country that isn't us. Whatever material you found about procedure from this "FBI" is irrelevant. Their failures bear no consequence, we're simply concerned with building our own police force into an effective means in combating terror.

Quote:
If you had said speedy, I might buy it. However, fair is far from the problem. That said, these issues are far from slowing down the judicial system, if you have enough judges.

Judicary systems, in my country, are busy debating controversial issues like Gay Marriage, abortion, and human rights. They don't have the time to forcibly hear a request that they're just going to say yes to anyway because everyone is for using any means to find terrorism.

Quote:
And yet we can manage to get most of these warrants and whatnot with this system in place in the real world in a matter of hours in most cases, sometimes (in extreme cases) days

Who is we? Can you provide a statistic to back up your claim?

Quote:
I would rather a guilty man walk free than put an innocent man in jail

I would hate to be reading the newspapers in Forgotton Land when the inevitable terrorist attack happens. The headlines would read, "Millions Dead from Terror Attack; Rights of 5 Suspects Preserved." I mean, it doesn't matter that our water is now tainted and people are posioned and dying in the streets, at least we preserved their tirghts to download the water plants blueprints from the internet, coordinate their comrades via telephone, and desposit the remainder of their bank account in an account in another country via the internet. Oh wait....right. Are you really willing to take that chance and if so, what do the people of the forgotton lands whom you are representing think about that? I'd hate to be a citizen of your country, you go around needlessly taking chances on the unsure in the name of human rights.

Quote:
Not to mention standard procedure in industrialized nations

Who? And just because they're industrialized that makes them acceptable?

Quote:
You obviously don't have a clue about normal legal systems

You obviously have a knack for making real life refrences which have no bearing on the situation.


Quote:
None of which require extraordinary measures or powers granted to the police force. The Internet is a public area for police to constantly monitor as they see fit. Eco-terrorism is generally committed in public territory or even national propoerty. I have yet to hear of an actual case of nano-terrorism, nor do I have a clue how it would be better combatted by Police being given extra powers

Do you have any statistics to prove that assertion?

Quote:
The rights of millions of innocent civilians outweights the punishment of a few conspirators (BTW - most cyber-terrorism is conducted solo)

Facts anyone?

Quote:
Further aware of the vulnerability of water plants, nuclear facilities, and other spots deemed threats by the nation itself, and



Wow, that seems totally irrelevant. How is it that these locations' vulnerability means that police need more powers?


Quote:
DENIED.

I really struggle to understand you. If it's a debate you want you've got it in me yet you offer no counter plan or supporting facts.

While there a lot of resolutions I'd like to see repealed, this is not one of them.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Stop privacy intrusion is one of the few Shining Lights from the Golden Age of the UN - one of the very small number of intelligent and necessary proposals limiting the natural tendency of the government's attempt to grow beyond its role.

We will not support its repeal. Now or ever.

Perhaps but I don't sound like a used car salesman trying to pitch you an idea. I'm not coming to you on knees begging for your approval like most.

Actually, you are. You're pitch was no different than anyone else: "I have a theory, here's what I think we should do, here's why, here's my proposal". You followed the formula to the letter, with only a quick claim that you weren't standing on the soap box - which was true, you were standing on the drafting table.

What? 9/11? Crusader's Kingdom is not familar with this 9/11 of which you speak of, perhaps you're thinking of a different country that isn't us. Whatever material you found about procedure from this "FBI" is irrelevant. Their failures bear no consequence, we're simply concerned with building our own police force into an effective means in combating terror.

Default on this forum is OOC. Our arguments on this forum can be based around RL situations and examples, so long as none of it ends up in the resolution. Now please, respond to the statement fairly.

Judicary systems, in my country, are busy debating controversial issues like Gay Marriage, abortion, and human rights. They don't have the time to forcibly hear a request that they're just going to say yes to anyway because everyone is for using any means to find terrorism.

If they're just going to blind sign them, then wow, you've gotten past the resolution, and they wasted a grand total of 5 seconds. Meanwhile, that forces the police to actually do a bit of work so there has to actually be an end purpose to the piece of paper they want signed (even if its just a passport application, or approval for the police to produce counterfeit money, or whatever. But hey, if you want to set up the system that way, that's your problem).

BTW, I doubt you guys are debating Abortion and Gay Marriage thanks to resolutions 12, 43, 69, and 81, amongst others.

Who is we? Can you provide a statistic to back up your claim?

We as in industrialized and "civilized" nations of the real world. You want to see a statistic, 1/3 of people put on death row in the US are pulled off - why, because police work was sloppy - whether it be procedural issues or proof that the person is, in fact, innocent. These police who are required to do everything that is listed in resolution 10 (and actually much, much more) are still making errors and getting people wrongfully charged or infringing upon the rights of that citizen.

I would hate to be reading the newspapers in Forgotton Land when the inevitable terrorist attack happens.

Yes, it is a wonderful foregone conclusion that a terrorist attack will because of this resolution, or that the removal of this resolution (or the laws it passes) will prevent terrorist attacks. As I said before, history has shown intelligence failures, departmental miscommunication, and various other problems are much more detremental in allowing terrorist attacks to happen. Before 9/11, the US was able to stop a known terrorist from entering the US, less than a day before his planned attack....December 31, 1999, Seattle. Again, the police had to follow the same procedures and more than were outlined in resolution 10. Revoking rights doesn't improve combat of terrorism, it improves the ability to conduct tyranny.

The headlines would read, "Millions Dead from Terror Attack; Rights of 5 Suspects Preserved."

:rolleyes:

I mean, it doesn't matter that our water is now tainted and people are posioned and dying in the streets, at least we preserved their tirghts to download the water plants blueprints from the internet,

Because, of course, those blueprints are public and have been uploaded to the internet. No wait, they weren't. They weren't even on a computer with a network jack.

coordinate their comrades via telephone, and desposit the remainder of their bank account in an account in another country via the internet.

Actually, if we had this much info, we would have had enough of a case to present to the court system. 10 minutes later, we have a warrant to begin monitoring.

Oh wait....right. Are you really willing to take that chance and if so, what do the people of the forgotton lands whom you are representing think about that?

First of all, Forgottenlands is one word, and has an e, please get it right.

Second, you obviously have no clue how police and legal systems work. All they need is enough evidence to be able to suspect these people. If we don't have this evidence, then we would have to monitor ALL e-mails (holy ****, talk about global bandwidth drain) and ALL telephone calls and hope like heck that we hit what we're concerned about - which will most likely be a cryptic message in a foreign language that we don't have time to decode - or even catch.

I'd hate to be a citizen of your country, you go around needlessly taking chances on the unsure in the name of human rights.

I would hate to be a citizen of your country. You go around phone tapping people at random without any proof of them having done something. Suddenly, everyone in the country has a file of what they have done so far on the phone or internet. Next thing you know, we're starting to prosecute people for saying anti-patriotic or government-critical things over the phone or e-mail, all in the name of preventing terrorism.

And I note, despite the fact that my primary nation is not a member of the UN, with these policies in existence and a minimal police force, crime is minimal.

Who? And just because they're industrialized that makes them acceptable?

*sighs*. If you think that the RL industrialized nations are truly failing with similar and stronger laws in place than resolution 10, explain why and how, and back it up with examples. Be warned, don't use 9/11, 'cause that had nothing to do with courts getting in the way.

You obviously have a knack for making real life refrences which have no bearing on the situation.

Actually, RL references have a heck of a lot of bearing to the situation. Try again.

Do you have any statistics to prove that assertion?

Sorry, messed up. Withdrawn - had the wrong idea of what ecological terrorism was. Ecological terrorism, however, is more of a sabotage issue than an actual "terrorist" issue. You rarely prosecute them as a terrorist, you almost always prosecute them for things like vandalism, tresspassing, etc or take them to civil court.

Facts anyone?

Ok, how often do you hear of "teams of hackers" or of arrests for virus makers being for "teams of programmers". It's ALWAYS ONE GUY. Try again.

I really struggle to understand you. If it's a debate you want you've got it in me yet you offer no counter plan or supporting facts.

What, do I have to hunt down passed laws within multiple nations that say police are not allowed to tap your phones or read your e-mails without getting a warrant? That's common knowlege! If you honestly expect me to hunt down this information, this debate is far from being worth my time!

BTW - if you're interested to know what these so called court approvals are, they're WARRANTS. Look them up, you might learn something.