NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cluichstan.jpg

As noted in the thread title, this is just a draft. The proposal has not yet been submitted for formal consideration. The people of Cluichstan welcome any input.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

============================

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

DEFINES terrorism as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes,

DECLARES that such acts are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them,

NOTING that any act of international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

RECOGNIZING the need to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

URGES all member nations to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts,

RECOGNIZING the need for member states to complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism in their territories through all lawful means,

NOTING that every member nation has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in terrorist acts in another nation or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,

MANDATES that all member nations shall:

(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

(b) Criminalize the willful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;

(c) Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities; and

(d) Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets, economic resources, or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

MANDATES that all member nations shall:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support -- active or passive -- to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,
including by provision of early warning to other member nations by exchange of information;

(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts, or those who provide safe havens;

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate, or commit terrorist acts from
using their respective territories for those purposes against other member nations or their citizens;

(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation, or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts; and

(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;

URGES all member nations to:

(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational
information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or
networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts; and

(d) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers, or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

Woah...have you checked its character count is under the limit? Looks a bit long.

(Also, I don't believe there is a Security Council. Just use 'The NationStates United Nations'.)

Woah...have you checked its character count is under the limit? Looks a bit long.

(Also, I don't believe there is a Security Council. Just use 'The NationStates United Nations'.)

No, I haven't checked, but I figured starting with a longer proposal that could be trimmed was the better way to go.

(And yeah, my bad on the SC thing. Fixing it now.)

Also, category and strength? (Sorry I'm doiing this in drips, I have my hands full right now.)

AFFIRMING that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the
purposes and principles of the NationStates United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning, and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to said purposes and principles;

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

That's the UN mandate, and that's about it. I agree that inciting terrorist acts should be contrary to UN purposes and principles, but I'm not sure it really is. There's no grand 'spirit of the union' on NS. So, I'm not sure how relevant these clauses are.

RECOGNIZING nations' inherent right of individual or collective self-defense

Should be and? Also, this is already recognised by the UN.

RECOGNIZING the need to combat by all means threats to interational peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

People will get jumpy at 'all means'. Sounds like a mandate for abuse of power.

URGES all member nations to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation,

Fair enough, but the trailing clause makes it awkward. The increased cooperation is implied, really. Anyway, it's a bit too operative to be up here.

Overall, though, this looks as though there's something in it. I'll post more in a bit.

My quesiton is the question I am always forced to ask in proposals of this type :-
Who gets to define terrorist and terrorism?

If you are going to ask me to stop supporting groups engaged in various activities, who gets to decide the activities? What if I consider The Hyrulian Paramilitary Front to be an army of freedom fighters, instead of terrorists? Can I still support them?

Our Gruenberger friends make some excellent points, and their feedback is most appreciated. The people of Cluichstan will modify the draft along the lines suggested by my esteemed colleague from Gruenberg.

Any other comments or suggestions?

the definition of terorism needs to be defined. as well as a safeguard so that legitimate rebellions cannot be labeled terrorist's.

Im sorry but i dont think i could support this measure.

Again :}

My quesiton is the question I am always forced to ask in proposals of this type :-
Who gets to define terrorist and terrorism?

If you are going to ask me to stop supporting groups engaged in various activities, who gets to decide the activities? What if I consider The Hyrulian Paramilitary Front to be an army of freedom fighters, instead of terrorists? Can I still support them?

We shall not be voting for this proposal as we fear that bigger more humane nations may use this against us to lie and steal rubber sap from our trees and bamboo from our forests for there capitalist garden centres, as we have no oil fields!

Yes, that's exactly right. The people of Cluichstan want to rape your forests... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm just about to add a definition of terrorism to the proposal.

Yes, that's exactly right. The people of Cluichstan want to rape your forests... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm just about to add a definition of terrorism to the proposal.

I've got a few thoughts on a definition, I'll be watching this topic with interest.

The people of Cluichstan appreciate the interest in this draft proposal taken by our Hirotan friends. A definition of terrorism has been added to the draft, but we are, of course, still open to suggestions on this work in progress.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The people of Cluichstan appreciate the interest in this draft proposal taken by our Hirotan friends. A definition of terrorism has been added to the draft, but we are, of course, still open to suggestions on this work in progress.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Still - who gets to define terrorists as terrorists? What if I support the actions they are taking? Hell - what if I am the one taking the actions to liberate my country? Would I be forbidden from fighting for what is legally and morally mine just cause I have to scare that crap out of the population who are now occupying my nation illegally?

Still - who gets to define terrorists as terrorists? What if I support the actions they are taking? Hell - what if I am the one taking the actions to liberate my country? Would I be forbidden from fighting for what is legally and morally mine just cause I have to scare that crap out of the population who are now occupying my nation illegally?

Did you even bother to read the proposal as it currently stands or the previous statement (which you even quoted) made here by the people of Cluichstan? A definition of terrorism has been added to the draft proposal.

Did you even bother to read the proposal as it currently stands or the previous statement (which you even quoted) made here by the people of Cluichstan? A definition of terrorism has been added to the draft proposal.

That's not my point.

I get the definition of terrorism - that's not an issue.

What I want to know is who, under your proposal, gets to decide whether someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Or are you not going to make a difference?

It's really quite simple. According to the draft resolution, as it currently stands:

DEFINES terrorism as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes,

DECLARES that such acts are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them...

Thus, anyone committing such act is, by definition, a terrorist.

EDIT: I did just make a slight change to the wording, simply for clarity's sake (and the fact that it wasn't very good English as previously written). :(

Woah...have you checked its character count is under the limit? Looks a bit long.



just for information:

your proposition:
characters without space = 4331
characters with spaces = 5120

the longest "UN resolution" is:
#25 The Child Protection Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tions/start=24

characters (without space)= 2938
characters (with spaces)= 3513

it seems the limit is 3000 without space (not sure)

The people of Cluichstan appreciate the assistance of our friends in Love and Esterel.

It's really quite simple. According to the draft resolution, as it currently stands:

DEFINES terrorism as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes,

DECLARES that such acts are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them...

Thus, anyone committing such act is, by definition, a terrorist.

EDIT: I did just make a slight change to the wording, simply for clarity's sake (and the fact that it wasn't very good English as previously written). :(

Then I can't support it, simply because I don't accept your premise - that there are no circumstances in which these actions are unjustifiable. It's not true, and nothing will make me support a proposal that demands me to believe it.

Then I can't support it, simply because I don't accept your premise - that there are no circumstances in which these actions are unjustifiable. It's not true, and nothing will make me support a proposal that demands me to believe it.

The people of Pallatium are, of course, entitled to their opinion. And to show there is no ill will between the people of Cluichstan and our friends in Pallation, we want it to be known that we will do our best to prevent any terrorist attacks against Pallatium about which we may acquire intelligence, as well as provide any necessary assistance should the people of Pallatium ever find themselves victims of a terrorist attack.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The people of Pallatium are, of course, entitled to their opinion. And to show there is no ill will between the people of Cluichstan and our friends in Pallation, we want it to be known that we will do our best to prevent any terrorist attacks against Pallatium about which we may acquire intelligence, as well as provide any necessary assistance should the people of Pallatium ever find themselves victims of a terrorist attack.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Thank you. And should your country find itself under occupation by a government that thinks nothing of raping and murdering your children, sacrificing your women and making all the men have sex with goats, we will ensure that should you resort to an armed response that might instill terror in anyway, we will use this resolution to beat you down and make sure you stay occupied by the raping, murdering government.

Her Majesty's snide reply is duly noted.

Her Majesty's snide reply is duly noted.

Darn! I was kind of hoping it would prompt you to remove the definition of terrorism, and just say what has to be done when terrorism occurrs - so that goverments chose not the international community.

Darn! I was kind of hoping it would prompt you to remove the definition of terrorism, and just say what has to be done when terrorism occurrs - so that goverments chose not the international community.

Her Majesty is contradicting herself. Without a definition of terrorism, how can one know when an act of terrorism has occurred?

Each goverment reviews the act and decides whether it constitutes terrorism in their opinion.

For example in our past we had a very, very dark period when Queen Leonara refused to step down after she was voted out. She ruled on, against the will of the people, and because she had a lot of the army on her side, eventually the people decided to rebel and take matters in to their own hands. To cut a long story short, by any stretch of your definition, The PPA were terrorists - the had no real way to fight the army, so they took the battle to the streets and the towns, and there was a lot of terror amongst the population who supported Leonara. And yet the PPA are glorifed as heroes in our public histories because they took freedom back from the the evil tyrant who had attempted (and more or less suceeded) to enslave the country to her will.

You don't define terrorism - you let a government decide if an act is a terrorist act, and if it is they can follow the proposal/resolution, and if not then they don't have to.

The scenario you present is an invalid argument, as, by your own admission, Queen Leonara was acting illegally, and her regime was, thus, not the legitimate government of your people. What you present is a civil war scenario, not one related to terrorism.

I will support any resolution that lets the UN defines who is the terrorist or not...

But isn't there another propsal about terrorism? Couldn't we merge them together or support one over the other?

The other anti-terrorism proposal is too vague, in the opinion of the people of Cluichstan. Our draft proposal sets a specific definition of terrorism and lists specific actions to be taken to counter this threat to international security.

Cuation's goverment can only wish it was around to support poor Queen Leonara

I would have to vote against this for many reasons, mainly the will of the people, should it ever come to vote. We will deal with those who threaten the Holy Empire's safety in our own way!

Jude
Ruler of Cuation

The scenario you present is an invalid argument, as, by your own admission, Queen Leonara was acting illegally, and her regime was, thus, not the legitimate government of your people. What you present is a civil war scenario, not one related to terrorism.

With all due respect, that's not what your proposal says.


DEFINES terrorism as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes,

DECLARES that such acts are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them,


Our acts provoked a state of terror, and we intended that. Further more we were angling for political change as we wanted Leonara out of office.

Thus you would have to declare them unjustifiable.

You don't mention whether one side is right and the other side is wrong - you just say that the we committed terrorism.


Unless you wish to modify your definition to include the "good guy clause", which would more or less render it meaningless anyway.....

I will support any resolution that lets the UN defines who is the terrorist or not...

But isn't there another propsal about terrorism? Couldn't we merge them together or support one over the other?

And I will actively oppose any such resolution, because it is not the place of the UN to be telling me who I can and cannot support in times of war.

Cuation's goverment can only wish it was around to support poor Queen Leonara

I would have to vote against this for many reasons, mainly the will of the people, should it ever come to vote. We will deal with those whoi threaten the Holy Empire's safety in our own way!

Jude
Ruler of Cuation

(grin) You do realise Leonara was considered a very, very, evil woman, right?

Cuation's goverment can only wish it was around to support poor Queen Leonara

I would have to vote against this for many reasons, mainly the will of the people, should it ever come to vote. We will deal with those whoi threaten the Holy Empire's safety in our own way!

Jude
Ruler of Cuation

Ahhh, how very insular and short sighted.

And how about those who don't threaten your nation, who reside within your borders, yet plan to disrupt the government and security of a neighbouring nation? How would you feel if the positions were reversed - if a nation harboured or indeed sponsored groups with intentions to commit terrorist attacks on your soil?

So, for example (and I mean strictly if my government was as short sighted, naive, insular and thick headed) Cuation, you look to your own borders, you protect your own people, and if you harbour terrorists who target my nation, I'll ensure that they are resolved myself, regardless of your borders or your governments complaints. If that means invasion, so be it. My armed forces can be very nasty when they set their mind to it, and since you'll deal with terrorism your own way, we would do the same, trampling all over your nation in the process. Shame about your country becoming an annex of ours though.

My government seeks international co-operation against terrorism - I'm sure most of the nations within the UN can deal with their own issues and deal with them however their law permits. But Hirota seeks to promote international co-operation against terrorism. Terrorism is not confined to a single location or a single issue, but by working together, stamping out terrorism and sharing best practices to reduce the risk to innocents.

National Soverignty be damned, this is about protecting civilians!

National Soverignty be damned, this is about protecting civilians!

National sovereignty isn't at issue here. The draft proposal here is simply calling for increased international cooperation, as my estemmed colleague from Hirota has noted. The people of Cluichstan treasure their national sovereignty and would not stomp on the sovereignty of other nations.

The people of Cluichstan are quite pleased with the draft as it stands, though we realise that we must condense it to meet the size requirement. This we will be working on in the coming days, with the hope of having a final version ready soon.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

National Soverignty be damned, this is about protecting civilians!

Which is exactly the attitude that makes me wish people were not allowed to use the word terrorism in proposals and resolution.

How am I to protect my people if someone else gets to decide who and what they need protecting from?

National sovereignty isn't at issue here. The draft proposal here is simply calling for increased international cooperation, as my estemmed colleague from Hirota has noted. The people of Cluichstan treasure their national sovereignty and would not stomp on the sovereignty of other nations.

The people of Cluichstan are quite pleased with the draft as it stands, though we realise that we must condense it to meet the size requirement. This we will be working on in the coming days, with the hope of having a final version ready soon.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Well - I would disagree to the first part. If you are saying that you (or "THE UN" are going to tell me who I must support, and who I must arrest, in a civil war (or a terrorist action), then you have entirely superceeded my national sovereignty.

Well - I would disagree to the first part. If you are saying that you (or "THE UN" are going to tell me who I must support, and who I must arrest, in a civil war (or a terrorist action), then you have entirely superceeded my national sovereignty.

No, the people of Cluichstan are saying that all responsible governments must cooperate to stamp out an international menace. You are missing a crucial point here. This proposal does not deal with non-state actors within your own borders acting against your government or and civil wars in a nation. This deal with non-state actors operating, for instance, from within the borders of Pallatium and using the country as a source of revenue or a staging ground for terrorist operations across an international border. This is precisely why this is a UN matter and not one of national sovereignty. I suggest my colleague from Pallatium read the draft proposal again.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

No, the people of Cluichstan are saying that all responsible governments must cooperate to stamp out an international menace. You are missing a crucial point here. This proposal does not deal with non-state actors within your own borders acting against your government or and civil wars in a nation. This deal with non-state actors operating, for instance, from within the borders of Pallatium and using the country as a source of revenue or a staging ground for terrorist operations across an international border. This is precisely why this is a UN matter and not one of national sovereignty. I suggest my colleague from Pallatium read the draft proposal again.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

But what if Hyrule (my next door neighbour) drives out some people they call "terrorists", but I call "freedom fighters" and the terrorists/freedom fights come to me looking for help. If I think their cause is just I would GLADY shelter them while they continue their fight.

But you would ask me not to.

But what if Hyrule (my next door neighbour) drives out some people they call "terrorists", but I call "freedom fighters" and the terrorists/freedom fights come to me looking for help. If I think their cause is just I would GLADY shelter them while they continue their fight.

But you would ask me not to.

Wow, it's really difficult for me to post, none of the graphics are working for me <weird>

Regardless of their cause or justifications, then if they commit terrorist attacks then they should be treated as such. I know you feel otherwise, but that is a position which I feel is in the minority.

Wow, it's really difficult for me to post, none of the graphics are working for me <weird>

Regardless of their cause or justifications, then if they commit terrorist attacks then they should be treated as such. I know you feel otherwise, but that is a position which I feel is in the minority.

(smirk) Most freedom fighters are :}

It's rather scaring that this resolution draft does not mention preventing terrorism. Progressive foreign and social politics, respecting other nations and their citizens? Nah. Nuke 'm.

Really scary.

It's rather scaring that this resolution draft does not mention preventing terrorism. Progressive foreign and social politics, respecting other nations and their citizens? Nah. Nuke 'm.

Really scary.You are right, and methods should be sought to resolve though peaceful dialogue to stop the need for terrorism. But realistically, do you think terrorists would want to stop at a compromise? RL Examples: For a long time, a splinter group of the IRA was still committing bombings whilst the original organisation had ceased attacks.

Could you really see the US and Bin Laden getting on as well as they used to back in the days of the USSR?

I agree efforts must be made to try and resolve such issues peacefully, but the cynic within suggests that such efforts will not get far in the short term.

Yes, there are quite a few problems with "combatting terrorism," if one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

"A revolution is always legal in the first person, as in 'our' revolution. It's only illegal in the third person, as in 'their' revolution." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1776 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068156/quotes)

A more academic and precise definition of terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism) is found in Wiki:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

This is an 830-word definition of a problem which even some will argue with.

Terrorism is also often defined as acts of violence (or threats of violence) in contravention of international law and the rules of war (Geneva Conventions and Protocols (http://www.genevaconventions.org/), or other international protocols against the use of weapons with indiscriminant effects, such as against land mines and booby traps).

Conventions on combatting terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_conventions_on_terrorism) usually cover a) the prohibition of taking hostages (or using human shields), b) safeguarding aircraft, airports, ships and other means of public transit or commerce, c) the safeguard of public utilities such as nuclear power plants or water supplies, d) banning assassination of government figures and diplomats, and e) identifying direct and clarifying indirect violations of the conventional rules of war.

Terrorists are not terrorists if they follow the rules of war, even if acts of war terrify a civil populace. War is often psychological, and those who are scared are not necessarily the victims of "terrorists."

A terrorist can certainly be a war power that siezes a town and threatens to machinegun the non-combatant inhabitants unless the combatants capitulate. To even threaten this is a terrorist act. To actually do so is not just an act of terrorism, but mass murder, or genocide. This is an abrogation of international human rights law, and an atrocity beyond the pale of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

However, there are those who obviously do not care to heed those rules when they arm 12-year-olds with AK-47s and send them into battle.

The actual UN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/conv12.pdf) [PDF] defines terrorism as this:
(a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex; or

(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

The Annex lists:

1. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on 16 December 1970.

2. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971.

3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.

4. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

5. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

6. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988.

7. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

8. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

9. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.
This would never fly in NS UN, because it's obviously a house-of-cards violation.

However, you could make brief, specific note of key areas of protection such as prevention of hostage taking, protection of diplomats and government workers, siezures of aircraft or airports, vehicles or stations of mass-transit, port facilities and ships at sea, off-shore facilities, power plants, water supplies, etc.

It's rather scaring that this resolution draft does not mention preventing terrorism. Progressive foreign and social politics, respecting other nations and their citizens? Nah. Nuke 'm.

Really scary.

Um...it does. If you read it, it does talk about sharing intelligence and prodiving early warning of possible terrorist acts.

But what if Hyrule (my next door neighbour) drives out some people they call "terrorists", but I call "freedom fighters" and the terrorists/freedom fights come to me looking for help. If I think their cause is just I would GLADY shelter them while they continue their fight.

But you would ask me not to.

It is not the business of Pallatium, or any nation, to interfere in the internal politics of Hyrule, or any other nation. If Pallation were to provide shelter for terrorists that are acting against its neighbor, Pallatium would be in violation of the terms of this proposal. That being said, however, even without the terms of this proposal being applied, sheltering and supporting what amounts to a fighting force that is actively engaged against another nation and/or its government (however my colleague from Pallatium chooses to put it) would be considered by most, I think, to be an act of war.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The actual UN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/conv12.pdf) [PDF]...


Moot point, as that is not what is being proposed here.

Regardless of their cause or justifications, then if they commit terrorist attacks then they should be treated as such.

And this is precisely stated in the draft resolution. Thank you, my Hirotan friend.

Um...it does. If you read it, it does talk about sharing intelligence and prodiving early warning of possible terrorist acts.
I believe you have missed entirely the point Mrs Lane was making.

It seems that, for once, Queen Lily and I are in full agreement. No disrespect to Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich and especially my friend Ambassador Kildarno, but the people of Ecopoeia will resist any attempt by the UN to define terrorism. We owe it to those who fought for our liberation in the revolutions of 1968 and 1979.

I have no desire to see my fellow UN Speaker have her late mother classified as a terrorist.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I believe you have missed entirely the point Mrs Lane was making.

It seems that, for once, Queen Lily and I are in full agreement. No disrespect to Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich and especially my friend Ambassador Kildarno, but the people of Ecopoeia will resist any attempt by the UN to define terrorism. We owe it to those who fought for our liberation in the revolutions of 1968 and 1979.

I have no desire to see my fellow UN Speaker have her late mother classified as a terrorist.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Depends how they did it - if you have the time I'd be curious to know a little of your history in this area, and then I'd try and let you know how it would fit into the definition i've been working on. It might even be a useful case study to see if my definition is flexible enough to include grey areas :)

Moot point, as that is not what is being proposed here.
This seems to be precisely a plan to stop the funding of terrorism.

Therefore, looking at the body of work outside of this proposal as to what constitutes "terrorism," or does not constitute "terrorism," if of specific and germaine interest to the community.

What I am rather tired of is people bantering semantics wiggling the validity of UN proposals because of the technical limits of the character count.

We cannot propose a 17-page document, as one might in the real-world.

We cannot build upon existing international laws, because they "do not exist" in NS, though we purport that our tanks, our nations, and our atomic weapons do exist, based on real world states, weapons programs, laws, economics, and some fantastic adaptions thereof.

Therefore, we must abbreviate and use Common Sense, as a prior NS UN Resolution dictated we do, and accept for the sake of brevity, the closest approximations we can offer to NS UN that we can fit in an NS UN proposal.

So pardon me, but I believe the point is relevant, especially as people were specifically arguing what "terrorism" meant.

If this was a proposal on what "global warming" meant, or even "democracy," that too should rely upon some real-world reference.

Even if the real-world, and the real-world UN, does not exist in the game, they provide useful models of what we might want to actually be doing here, limited though we may be.

Depends how they did it - if you have the time I'd be curious to know a little of your history in this area, and then I'd try and let you know how it would fit into the definition i've been working on. It might even be a useful case study to see if my definition is flexible enough to include grey areas :)
OOC: It's fairly tentative at the mo and I've certainly not thought through any specific events, outside of an assassination. Ecopoeia's NSWiki page has some sketchy details, if you're interested:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ecopoeia

OOC: It's fairly tentative at the mo and I've certainly not thought through any specific events, outside of an assassination. Ecopoeia's NSWiki page has some sketchy details, if you're interested:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ecopoeia

Had a look, nothing there makes me think they were terrorists as such. For a start it appears to have been a popular uprising, and since I can't see any historical evidence of attacks on non-combatant civilians, I don't think I'd consider terrorism to have taken place.

Certain... unfortunate acts are yet to be detailed.

You are right, and methods should be sought to resolve though peaceful dialogue to stop the need for terrorism. But realistically, do you think terrorists would want to stop at a compromise? RL Examples: For a long time, a splinter group of the IRA was still committing bombings whilst the original organisation had ceased attacks.

There is a difference though between a small splinter group and terrorist backed by the population. What power would Al Quaeda have if the relations between the muslim and christian world would be better? How willing to sacrifice would succesfull, happy people be? Those are the questions to answer, and the answer isn't in weapons.

Um...it does. If you read it, it does talk about sharing intelligence and prodiving early warning of possible terrorist acts.

That's not true prevention of terrorism. Terrorist acts, maybe, but not terrorism. You can't stop that with weapons or spying, only with a truly peacefull attitude towards others.

It is not the business of Pallatium, or any nation, to interfere in the internal politics of Hyrule, or any other nation. If Pallation were to provide shelter for terrorists that are acting against its neighbor, Pallatium would be in violation of the terms of this proposal. That being said, however, even without the terms of this proposal being applied, sheltering and supporting what amounts to a fighting force that is actively engaged against another nation and/or its government (however my colleague from Pallatium chooses to put it) would be considered by most, I think, to be an act of war.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

This proposal is entirely in the business of letting/forcing nations to interfere with the internal politics of other nations. You are requiring people to accept a definition of a freedom/liberation fighter as a terrorist, and preventing them from supplying support to such a group.

That being said, I am sure that, even with all the definitions and terms in this proposal, I can find a loophole to justify them as freedom fighters as opposed to terrorist, and thus give them shelter.

So while I can't bring myself to support such a proposal, I can happily ignore it once it passes :}

This seems to be precisely a plan to stop the funding of terrorism.

OOC: They may have the same intent, but my draft proposal is not the same as the RL UN's convention. Besides, you shouldn't be arguing using RL examples anyway. And I really love how people come up with national histories on the fly in order to support their weak arguments. :rolleyes:

OOC: They may have the same intent, but my draft proposal is not the same as the RL UN's convention. Besides, you shouldn't be arguing using RL examples anyway. And I really love how people come up with national histories on the fly in order to support their weak arguments. :rolleyes:
OOC: Oh, hush now. I first used this argument around eighteen months ago during a very similar discussion on terrorism. It's been a planned part of my nation's history from the outset (nearly two years ago). I've just never got around to writing it down in any detail.

The arguments against you aren't weak. We just disagree. Sorry and all that.

(ooc) Ditto. Just one of my former nations.

Certain... unfortunate acts are yet to be detailed.History always gets written by the winners. <shrugs>


This proposal is entirely in the business of letting/forcing nations to interfere with the internal politics of other nations. You are requiring people to accept a definition of a freedom/liberation fighter as a terrorist, and preventing them from supplying support to such a group.

That being said, I am sure that, even with all the definitions and terms in this proposal, I can find a loophole to justify them as freedom fighters as opposed to terrorist, and thus give them shelter.

So while I can't bring myself to support such a proposal, I can happily ignore it once it passes :}

Still doesn't stop a nation taking the law into it's own hands. And if your freedom fighters target primarily civilian non-combatants then they are terrorists, simple as. The only difference I can perceive between terrorists and freedom fighters is their targets and regard for civilian life.

<sigh> I think I'm going to wander back to my original topic, it's about time that was released out into the wild.

Frankly, this "freedom fighters vs. terrorist" argument is semantic nonsense. Call them freedom fighters all you want. If the so-called "freedom fighters" are operating solely within a single nation's borders, then it is an internal matter, plain and simple, and the UN has no business getting involved. However, if they are operating across international borders, committing what are considered to be crimes in the targeted country, then it is perfectly within the UN's mandate to address the problem.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Frankly, this "freedom fighters vs. terrorist" argument is semantic nonsense. Call them freedom fighters all you want. If the so-called "freedom fighters" are operating solely within a single nation's borders, then it is an internal matter, plain and simple, and the UN has no business getting involved. However, if they are operating across international borders, committing what are considered to be crimes in the targeted country, then it is perfectly within the UN's mandate to address the problem.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

And yet your proposal would require the UN to interfere internally. If I am fighting for my freedom in my country (and not fighting anywhere else) but request financial aid from another nation (cause my government probably won't give it me, since it thinks I am a terrorist) then your proposal would require them to say no. Hence the UN is interfering in the internal affairs of my nation.


Now - I don't have an issue with that. The UN is there to meddle (or to make life better, depending on semantics) and I am damn glad it is.

What I have a problem with is not being able to support a group in another country that I think are doing good work, just cause they use dubious methods at times.

What I have a problem with is not being able to support a group in another country that I think are doing good work, just cause they use dubious methods at times.

Make that criminal methods. Plus, you'd be interfering in another country's internal politics, which are none of your business.

Still doesn't stop a nation taking the law into it's own hands. And if your freedom fighters target primarily civilian non-combatants then they are terrorists, simple as. The only difference I can perceive between terrorists and freedom fighters is their targets and regard for civilian life.


Nope - the only difference is whether they are viewed as the good guys or the bad guys by the person viewing them.

(Take the French Resistance during World War II, Robin Hood, The Resistance in V, my own PPA, the group started by EON in TilEnca - all of them were terrorists from a certain point of view, but all of them made, or tried to make, their respecitve worlds better)


But - this is not something we are going to agree on, so I will stop trying to change your mind :}

But - this is not something we are going to agree on, so I will stop trying to change your mind :}

Finally!

Finally!

(smirk) I would tell you about an old saying we have, but I think it loses something in the translation.

Also - I meant I would stop trying to change Hirota's mind. Didn't say nothing about anyone else's :}

I don't have time to read all the posts, and I noted the character count comment earlier so here's some things to note:

1) You did not define terrorist. I don't give a damn whether they're working Internationally or Intranationally, I can still call them freedom fighters and dodge this resolution. I wouldn't, however, recommend defining these things, but rather take your focus to terrorist acts and those who fund or commit them. Believe me, this loophole works and has been used before

2) Character count limit without spaces: 3000. That's what we think is a safe assumption. There is no way you're under, but I think you knew that.

I don't have time to read all the posts, and I noted the character count comment earlier so here's some things to note:

1) You did not define terrorist. I don't give a damn whether they're working Internationally or Intranationally, I can still call them freedom fighters and dodge this resolution. I wouldn't, however, recommend defining these things, but rather take your focus to terrorist acts and those who fund or commit them. Believe me, this loophole works and has been used before


Oddly enough that's why I don't want terrorist defined. So that I can call them freedom fighters and ignore this when I need to.

Oddly enough that's why I don't want terrorist defined. So that I can call them freedom fighters and ignore this when I need to.

I hate resolutions that are poorly constructed much more than I dislike resolutions that I disagree with. Why? Because I impose my beliefs on others so I accept it when they impose theirs on me. I might fight it with all my might, but I won't be infuriated. However, a poor resolution is painful to see, and useless to argue with or against. Add on the difficulty repealing stuff, I have a tough time accepting them, or the fact that they made it to the resolution state.

I hate resolutions that are poorly constructed much more than I dislike resolutions that I disagree with. Why? Because I impose my beliefs on others so I accept it when they impose theirs on me. I might fight it with all my might, but I won't be infuriated. However, a poor resolution is painful to see, and useless to argue with or against. Add on the difficulty repealing stuff, I have a tough time accepting them, or the fact that they made it to the resolution state.

I agree. But Pallatium has dropped his concerns about the resolution, so it will no longer be poorly constructed.

I don't have time to read all the posts, and I noted the character count comment earlier so here's some things to note:

1) You did not define terrorist. I don't give a damn whether they're working Internationally or Intranationally, I can still call them freedom fighters and dodge this resolution. I wouldn't, however, recommend defining these things, but rather take your focus to terrorist acts and those who fund or commit them. Believe me, this loophole works and has been used before

You really fail at reading comprehension, don't you?

2) Character count limit without spaces: 3000. That's what we think is a safe assumption. There is no way you're under, but I think you knew that.

I've already acknowledged it was over the character limit (which we determined earlier today was 3,500). But uh...thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

I agree. But Pallatium has dropped his concerns about the resolution, so it will no longer be poorly constructed.

I did? There are too many of these terrorism threads to remeber what I have done in which :}

(Also - Queen Lily is female, but that's a minor thing)

One propsoal is better than two - Lets see if we can't blend our proposals together.....

Hopefully you don't mind if I take a copy of yours, take a copy of mine, and throw them together

The general assembly;

Deeply concerned by the increase in acts of international terrorism which endangers the lives and well-being of individuals worldwide as well as the peace and security of all States,

UNEQUIVOCALLY condemning all acts of terrorism, irrespective of motive, wherever and by whoever committed,

Emphasising the necessity to strengthen, under the auspices of the United Nations, effective international cooperation in this field on the basis of the principles and norms of international law, including respect for international humanitarian law and human rights,

Supporting the efforts to promote universal participation in and implementation of the existing international anti-terrorist conventions, as well as to develop new international instruments to counter the terrorist threat,

Determined to contribute to efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms,

Reaffirming that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are involved, is an essential contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security,

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, religion or ideology and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

1. Unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whoever committed, in particular those which threaten international peace and security;

2. Stresses the vital role of the United Nations in strengthening international cooperation in combating terrorism & emphasizes the importance of enhanced coordination among States, international and regional organizations;

3. Calls upon all States to take, inter alia, in the context of such cooperation and coordination, appropriate steps to:
- cooperate with each other, particularly through bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements, to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, protect their nationals and other persons against terrorist attacks and bring to justice the perpetrators of such acts;
- prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the preparation and financing of any acts of terrorism;
- deny those who plan, finance or commit terrorist acts safe havens by ensuring their apprehension and prosecution or extradition;
- take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not participated in terrorist acts;
- exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law, and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters in order to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
- seek dialogue between governments and terrorist groups to seek peaceful resolutions through discussion of issues where possible;

4. Determined to remain seized of this matter.

The United Nations,

DEFINES terrorism as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes,

DECLARES that such acts are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them,

NOTING that any act of international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

RECOGNIZING the need to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

URGES all member nations to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts,

RECOGNIZING the need for member states to complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism in their territories through all lawful means,

NOTING that every member nation has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in terrorist acts in another nation or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,

MANDATES that all member nations shall:

(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

(b) Criminalize the willful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;

(c) Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities; and

(d) Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets, economic resources, or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

MANDATES that all member nations shall:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support -- active or passive -- to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,
including by provision of early warning to other member nations by exchange of information;

(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts, or those who provide safe havens;

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate, or commit terrorist acts from
using their respective territories for those purposes against other member nations or their citizens;

(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation, or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts; and

(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;

URGES all member nations to:

(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational
information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or
networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts; and

(d) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers, or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

From my perspective, much of what the two proposals say are similar and very comparable, however, mine lies under the character limit, whilst yours is above it. We’d need to trim yours down to a reasonable level (using my similar entries as guidelines, or adding to mine from yours – or a combination of both to form an entirely new proposal). Moreover, I think we need to work on the definition (mine is more extensive, whilst yours is more concise – perhaps because your definition has not been adjusted as a result of contributions from other member states?)

So, lets work on the principle that we can reduce yours with my influence and including my definition (which I feel is more developed than your definition – we both have started at the same point in, just my definition is a little further along)….I get something like this:


The United Nations

DEEPLY CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism which endangers the lives and well-being of individuals worldwide as well as the peace and security of all States

UNEQUIVOCALLY condemning all acts of terrorism, irrespective of motive, wherever and by whoever committed

SUPPORTING efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms, as well as to develop new international instruments to counter terrorism

DEFINING Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state groups using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily & deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations & designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, religion or ideology & it may or may not be state-sponsored

ADAMANT that every member nation has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in terrorism or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts

MANDATES that member states shall:
- Prevent, suppress and criminalize the financing of terrorism
- Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit, or facilitate the commission of terrorism; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons & associated persons & entities

DETERMINED that member states shall:
- Refrain from providing any form of support (active or passive) to entities or persons involved in terrorism, including by suppressing recruitment of terrorist groups & eliminating the weapon stockpiles for terrorism
- Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, plan, support, or practice terrorism;
- Prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the preparation, facilitation & financing of any acts of terrorism
- Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation, or perpetration of terrorism or in supporting terrorism is brought to justice & ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, terrorist acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the brevity of such acts;
- Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings

URGES all member states to cooperate, particularly through bilateral & multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent & suppress terrorism and take action against perpetrators of such acts, through cooperation on administrative & judicial matters, and the exchange of operational information especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups & the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups

That’s 3715 characters including spaces – which is an improvement, but I think we can do better.

EDIT: 3563 – it’s getting trimmed :)

EDIT 3491 – under the limit

DEFINING Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state groups using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily & deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations & designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, religion or ideology & it may or may not be state-sponsored



Ok - one or two questions, just on the definition....

Where would this put the dropping of atomic, nuclear, hydrogen or other bombs on a nation? It would almost certainly fit that description (it will co-erce tha nation on which the bomb was dropped to give in to the demands of the nation who dropped it)

Where would this put a govenrment who made the statement "If any more spies are sent across the border, we will attack you nation in full force and show no mercy"? Cause that fits the description as well (it is the threat of violence used to alter the purpose of the government who is sending the spies)

Where would this put the governments who threaten to "disperse" a group of demonstrators who are protesting, against a nuclear weapons installation? If they threaten force to get the protestors to back off, it falls in this description.

Does the violence have to be directed against people? Or can it be against property? For example if the above protestors use wire-cutters or so forth to break down a fence, so they can protest inside the base - they haven't harmed anyone but they have directed violence against the government by breaking in to a nuclear missile base?


I realise these sounds like paranoid examples, but laws against terrorism have a bad habbit of spinning in to laws against dissent, and then laws against anyone who objects to the government. And while the definition appears to be consice, it would pretty much stop most weapons of mass destruction being uesd, it would stop nations from issuing any type of ultimatum against any other nation, it *could* stop protesters protesting in certain ways and it could prevent the police and government from acting to break up unlawful and potentially dangerous demonstrations.

Where would this put the dropping of atomic, nuclear, hydrogen or other bombs on a nation? It would almost certainly fit that description (it will co-erce tha nation on which the bomb was dropped to give in to the demands of the nation who dropped it)If it was done by a non-state group - I'd call it terrorism ("...threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state groups using...") If however a government was doing the bombing, it would not be terrorism, and outside this proposal.Where would this put a govenrment who made the statement "If any more spies are sent across the border, we will attack you nation in full force and show no mercy"? Cause that fits the description as well (it is the threat of violence used to alter the purpose of the government who is sending the spies)Same answer - it's not terrorism, it sounds like a genuine threat to start a war, but it's not terrorism, as again, this scenario would involve the government.Where would this put the governments who threaten to "disperse" a group of demonstrators who are protesting, against a nuclear weapons installation? If they threaten force to get the protestors to back off, it falls in this description.As above, but I'm sure the right for peaceful protest has been protected in a UN resolution before.Does the violence have to be directed against people? Or can it be against property? For example if the above protestors use wire-cutters or so forth to break down a fence, so they can protest inside the base - they haven't harmed anyone but they have directed violence against the government by breaking in to a nuclear missile base?not terrorism, as it is not targetted against non-combatant civilians - might be tresspassing though, depending on local laws.I realise these sounds like paranoid examples, but laws against terrorism have a bad habbit of spinning in to laws against dissent, and then laws against anyone who objects to the government.Agreed, and it's important those rights are balanced against the right for induvidual security.And while the definition appears to be consice, it would pretty much stop most weapons of mass destruction being uesd, it would stop nations from issuing any type of ultimatum against any other nation, it *could* stop protesters protesting in certain ways and it could prevent the police and government from acting to break up unlawful and potentially dangerous demonstrations.You'd be right, if I had not included the key words "by non-state groups" ;)

On first analysis, the people of Cluichstan like what we see in the new draft so thoughtfully prepared by our Hirotan friends and extend our utmost gratitude. We will, of course, require some more time for a more thorough analysis and will provide comments in as timely a manner as possible.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

(OOC: I'm at work right now, but I'll look this over more carefully during lunch.)

On first analysis, the people of Cluichstan like what we see in the new draft so thoughtfully prepared by our Hirotan friends and extend our utmost gratitude. We will, of course, require some more time for a more thorough analysis and will provide comments in as timely a manner as possible.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

(OOC: I'm at work right now, but I'll look this over more carefully during lunch.)

No problem - I'll be updating the redraft as I think of more ways to take out 215 characters. :)

No problem - I'll be updating the redraft as I think of more ways to take out 215 characters. :)


DEFINING Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state groups using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily & deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations & designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, religion or ideology & it may or may not be state-sponsored


580 characters that you could take out there ;}

(ooc) Sorry - this was just too easy to resist...

You'd be right, if I had not included the key words "by non-state groups" ;)

So - how do you define a non-state group? Or - more accurately - if a group of my people were to form what would have to be called a terrorist army under you proposal, and - before their first attack - I announced to my people that this group was infact part of my army - would that mean they would not ever be classed as terrorists? That they could do all of these things - attack citizens, blow up schools and so forth - and still not be terrorists, because they are part of my army?

(I know I said I totally disagree with this proposal, and I still do, but I admit I am getting really interested in the legal ramifications of it, and the use of language in it. It seems unlikely I will reverse my position, but I swear I am not doing this just to tweak or distract you - these are geniunine inquiries as to the effect and outcome of the proposal passing, if it should)

So - how do you define a non-state group? Or - more accurately - if a group of my people were to form what would have to be called a terrorist army under you proposal, and - before their first attack - I announced to my people that this group was infact part of my army - would that mean they would not ever be classed as terrorists? That they could do all of these things - attack citizens, blow up schools and so forth - and still not be terrorists, because they are part of my army?Well.....if they did join your army before participating in terrorism then they would not be terrorists, but could be considered a covert arm of your military. But, if they then participated in those acts you suggested under the aspices of being part of your armed forces, then I'd argue that your nation would be guilty of war crimes, and that would be a perfectly acceptably pretext for war by the target of such actions.
Perhaps it is a loophole that governments and state groups are not bound by similar constraints (and there are no obligations for nations to follow rules of war), but this proposal can only deal with one thing at a time and it's not a failure of this proposal that this has not been legislated on in the past - perhaps in the future you would be interested in co-operating in a proposal to bring about similar obligations upon state groups to restore parity?
(I know I said I totally disagree with this proposal, and I still do, but I admit I am getting really interested in the legal ramifications of it, and the use of language in it. It seems unlikely I will reverse my position, but I swear I am not doing this just to tweak or distract you - these are geniunine inquiries as to the effect and outcome of the proposal passing, if it should)I'm relatively grateful that you are bringing up these issues - it's good as otherwise someone else will ask, and if you do discover something which needs improvement, then it's good you discover it before it's submitted and it is too late.

It is annoying that you keep bringing up possible issues, but it's for the greater good, so I'll be patient :)

Well.....if they did join your army before participating in terrorism then they would not be terrorists, but could be considered a covert arm of your military. But, if they then participated in those acts you suggested under the aspices of being part of your armed forces, then I'd argue that your nation would be guilty of war crimes, and that would be a perfectly acceptably pretext for war by the target of such actions.
Perhaps it is a loophole that governments and state groups are not bound by similar constraints (and there are no obligations for nations to follow rules of war), but this proposal can only deal with one thing at a time and it's not a failure of this proposal that this has not been legislated on in the past - perhaps in the future you would be interested in co-operating in a proposal to bring about similar obligations upon state groups to restore parity?


So (and I admit this is now pushing it a bit) there is a group in another nation, that has been defined as terrorists due to their tendancies to blow things up. Am I permitted to declare them as associated of my government, and thus not be required to deal with them as outlined in this proposal.


I'm relatively grateful that you are bringing up these issues - it's good as otherwise someone else will ask, and if you do discover something which needs improvement, then it's good you discover it before it's submitted and it is too late.

It is annoying that you keep bringing up possible issues, but it's for the greater good, so I'll be patient :)

It's what I am good at.

So (and I admit this is now pushing it a bit) there is a group in another nation, that has been defined as terrorists due to their tendancies to blow things up. Am I permitted to declare them as associated of my government, and thus not be required to deal with them as outlined in this proposal.If they were part of your army in the first place, no. But if they were not part of your army, you would be obliged to cooperate against them. Moreover, my next project will be to legislate on nations, forbidding them to target civilians, perform war crimes, ethnic cleansing etc - so it's not going to be a long term loophole (if indeed one exists).

Even if you did blow up civilians as part of your armed forces, you don't think that's going to plunge you into war with your neighbour? And indeed, with other neighbours concerned by your flagrant disregard for international peace and security, and innocent life?

EDIT - I've just realised this - "ADAMANT that every member nation has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in terrorism or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts" which would suggest state sponsorship of groups which commit terrorism is prohibited.

If they were part of your army in the first place, no. But if they were not part of your army, you would be obliged to cooperate against them. Moreover, my next project will be to legislate on nations, forbidding them to target civilians, perform war crimes, ethnic cleansing etc - so it's not going to be a long term loophole (if indeed one exists).


Ok. I can more or less deal with that. I would like to point out that, in relation to this alone, the resolution doesn't say that I can't incorperate them in to my army, thus making co-operating against them negligable.


Even if you did blow up civilians as part of your armed forces, you don't think that's going to plunge you into war with your neighbour? And indeed, with other neighbours concerned by your flagrant disregard for international peace and security, and innocent life?


I know. But, as I may have mentioned before, just because someone does something bad doesn't make them the bad guys, and if I am plunged in to war for defending them, so be it.


EDIT - I've just realised this - "ADAMANT that every member nation has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in terrorism or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts" which would suggest state sponsorship of groups which commit terrorism is prohibited.

But where do you (or does the resolution) draw the line between "state sponsership" and the state itself?

So (and I admit this is now pushing it a bit) there is a group in another nation, that has been defined as terrorists due to their tendancies to blow things up. Am I permitted to declare them as associated of my government, and thus not be required to deal with them as outlined in this proposal.


Sure, but then should they attack another country, it could be -- and in all likelihood, would be -- considered an act of war. Also, by proclaiming them as being associated with your government, they would no longer be considered non-state actors and, thus, not covered by this proposal.

But where do you (or does the resolution) draw the line between "state sponsership" and the state itself?

I will be sure to make this distinction clear in the next revision of the draft.

Sure, but then should they attack another country, it could be -- and in all likelihood, would be -- considered an act of war. Also, by proclaiming them as being associated with your government, they would no longer be considered non-state actors and, thus, not covered by this proposal.

That's fine, cause if I am willing to support them, I am willing to go to war in their defence.

That's fine, cause if I am willing to support them, I am willing to go to war in their defence.

You do that.

Anyway, the people of Cluichstan have agreed upon the following revised draft (OOC: though I haven't checked character count yet, cuz I'm just lazy like that):

The United Nations:

DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.

FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organised and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activites that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation.

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger the lives and well-being of people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all States.

CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorsim, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.

SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.

DECLARES that every nation has the duty to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

MANDATES that member states shall:

A. Prevent, suppress and criminalise the financing of international terrorism and

B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities

DETERMINED that member states shall:

A. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;

B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;

C. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and

D. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings realted to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceeedings.

URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter, and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists; forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups; and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.

The people of Aroden refuse to accept this proposal. We feel that terrorism can be justified, and that working for a better, more peaceful and equitable world, with rights for everyone, will prevent the development of terror cells. We believe that condemnation of terrorist actions is sufficient, but that the development of counter-terrorist weaponry etc. is unjust and will simply create more conflict.

Thus, the people of Aroden refuse to accept the anti-terrorism proposal on democratic grounds, as suppression of expression by the government is undemocratic, and on the grounds of peace interests. Finally, the proposal also gives the government many powers of fund freezing and seizure, and fails to dictate how a "terrorist" will be defined, and also fails to specify the details of detainment in police custody - could suspicion of terrorist actions/connections warrant detainment?

The people of Aroden refuse to accept this proposal. We feel that terrorism can be justified, and that working for a better, more peaceful and equitable world, with rights for everyone, will prevent the development of terror cells. We believe that condemnation of terrorist actions is sufficient, but that the development of counter-terrorist weaponry etc. is unjust and will simply create more conflict.

Thus, the people of Aroden refuse to accept the anti-terrorism proposal on democratic grounds, as suppression of expression by the government is undemocratic, and on the grounds of peace interests. Finally, the proposal also gives the government many powers of fund freezing and seizure, and fails to dictate how a "terrorist" will be defined, and also fails to specify the details of detainment in police custody - could suspicion of terrorist actions/connections warrant detainment?

How the current definition deal with Resistance movement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement

"DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order."

I live in a continent where a resistance movement was very important 60 years ago, should this resistance would have been illegal if this proposition was passed before?

The people of Cluichstan wish their fellow representatives would actually read the draft proposal:

FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organised and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activites that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation.

The people of Cluichstan wish their fellow representatives would actually read the draft proposal:

thanks for your answer, i had read your proposition too fast,
but the resistance movement i was speaking about was helped from outside,

Sorry, this is me who don't really understand what mean your definition

but may you tell me if: resistance movements, helped from outside, as those during 1940-1945 in Eurore, will then be illegal?

thanks if you can answer to me again

thanks for your answer, i had read your proposition too fast,
but the resistance movement i was speaking about was helped from outside,

Sorry, this is me who don't really understand what mean your definition

but may you tell me if: resistance movements, helped from outside, as those during 1940-1945 in Eurore, will then be illegal?

thanks if you can answer to me again

I think I can address this by further refining the definition. (OOC: I had intended to do this and forgot.)

I think I can address this by further refining the definition. (OOC: I had intended to do this and forgot.)

thanks
good luck for your proposition, Love and esterel will then propoably support it

With small revision:

The United Nations:

DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.

FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organised and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activites that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger the lives and well-being of people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all States.

CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorsim, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.

SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.

DECLARES that every nation has the duty to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

MANDATES that member states shall:

A. Prevent, suppress and criminalise the financing of international terrorism and

B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities

DETERMINED that member states shall:

A. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;

B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;

C. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and

D. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings realted to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceeedings.

URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter, and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists; forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups; and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.

The change highlighted (italics added):

FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organised and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activites that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

...and fails to dictate how a "terrorist" will be defined...

That's not actually true :}

The people of Aroden refuse to accept this proposal. We feel that terrorism can be justified, and that working for a better, more peaceful and equitable world, with rights for everyone, will prevent the development of terror cells. We believe that condemnation of terrorist actions is sufficient, but that the development of counter-terrorist weaponry etc. is unjust and will simply create more conflict.


Which is all well and good, but right here, and right now, we have terrorist groups, and they have to be dealt with some way.


Thus, the people of Aroden refuse to accept the anti-terrorism proposal on democratic grounds, as suppression of expression by the government is undemocratic, and on the grounds of peace interests. Finally, the proposal also gives the government many powers of fund freezing and seizure, and fails to dictate how a "terrorist" will be defined, and also fails to specify the details of detainment in police custody - could suspicion of terrorist actions/connections warrant detainment?

Believe it or not - the lack of definition doesn't matter - two previous resolutions ("The Wolfish Convention" and "Haebus Corpus") deal with the treatment of anyone arrested within the boundries of the UN, and ensure they are treated with dignity and respect, not held forever and ever wihtout charge, and most of all no torture or abuse.

With small revision:



The change highlighted (italics added):


Thanks for your change
Please forgive again my intervention but

Do you remember the Reagan "contras" in the 80's (i was young then but i read about it after) against the spread of communism in central America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html

this is very political, but i personally mostly approves what reagan did at that time in central america

maybe you can tell me if your proposition will consider the "contras" as international terrorism?

it's just a question, as i really don't know, either your answer is yes or no, what will be my position about it

sorry my question is really ticky, but the topic also is tricky

i sincerely hope you will success

This would be my biggest problem with the proposal...

I would consider the contents of that article, and the actions, to be something I could describe as criminal, and something he should be prosecuted for. However a lot of people think he did the right thing and should be praised for it. Yet more people will think he did what was necessary, even if it was wrong.

The resolution makes NO allowance for any of that - it is entirely black and white.

This would be my biggest problem with the proposal...

I would consider the contents of that article, and the actions, to be something I could describe as criminal, and something he should be prosecuted for. However a lot of people think he did the right thing and should be praised for it. Yet more people will think he did what was necessary, even if it was wrong.

i think what Reagan did here was most right than wrong, but we are 100% in a grey area here, it's difficult

it is entirely black and white.

i will agre with this proposition as it is
but i fully agree with you, this is very black and white, but the world in what we live in is obviously not back and white, it's grey

maybe the author will be interested to introcuce something about "democracy" in his definition, i know that will not be easy to do, let's try...

i also don't understand what "religion do here"?
why does anybody mention religion in each unrelated topic of this forum?

i think what Reagan did here was most right than wrong, but we are 100% in a grey area here, it's difficult


I know. Maybe in the long term, Reagan will proved to be absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. But for now, people only have their opinions to go off of.


i will agre with this proposition as it is
but i fully agree with you, this is very black and white, but the world in what we live in is obviously not back and white, it's grey


The proposal says you are either a terrorist, or you aren't a terrorist. It doesn't worry about your motives for what you are doing. This is where I find it lacking :}


maybe the author will be interested to introcuce something about "democracy" in his definition, i know that will not be easy to do, let's try...


Well - no. Cause while democracy might be a good thing, it is more the political balance of the government that is elected that is the problem. Queen Leonara was democractically elected in my nation, but turned out to be a truly evil woman. And yet the First Queen (Queen Amy) was not elected - she was put in to power by The Divine Goddesses - but she is the most beloved and respected Queen in history.

A dictator can be a wonderful leader, who everyone loves, so why should terrorists be permitted to fight against him and get away with it? And on the other side a democractically elected leader could turn out to be a horrible person, and people would glady resort to terrorism to get rid of him.


i also don't understand what "religion do here"?

why does anybody mention religion in each unrelated topic of this forum?

I really don't know to what you are referring here. Sorry :}

maybe the author will be interested to introcuce something about "democracy" in his definition, i know that will not be easy to do, let's try...



No, because the people of Cluichstan do not believe that the UN should favor one particular form of government over another.

(OOC: I don't like dealing with RL examples IC, so I'll address the Contra question here. Yes, under this proposal, funding the Contras against the Sandanista government would have been illegal, and it was certainly illegal under US law anyway, given the way the Reagan administration went about it. And frankly, in my opinion, it should be illegal, both under US and international law. Now, before someone brings up the example of the US also supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the '80s, that was an entirely different situation, as Afghanistan had actually been invaded by the USSR, thus putting it under the war exception that is included in the latest draft of the proposal. The same goes for the US support of the Northern Alliance during Operation Enduring Freedom. The war exception kicks in in this instance as well.)

Now, the people of Cluichstan were going to ignore the comments from the respresentative of Aroden, as we felt them to be so absurd that they did not warrant addressing. However, since some of my esteemed colleagues have chosen to address them, we feel that we are obliged to do so as well.

The people of Aroden refuse to accept this proposal. We feel that terrorism can be justified, and that working for a better, more peaceful and equitable world, with rights for everyone, will prevent the development of terror cells. We believe that condemnation of terrorist actions is sufficient, but that the development of counter-terrorist weaponry etc. is unjust and will simply create more conflict.

Simply put, terrorism cannot be justified. Furthermore, working for a more peaceful world is always a goal of this austere body, but it is foolhardy to believe that such efforts will achieve any concrete, near-term success against what is an immediate problem of international consequence. In addition, simply condemn terrorism accomplishes nothing, as a condemnation is nothing but words. Without actions to back up these words, they have no effect whatsoever.

Thus, the people of Aroden refuse to accept the anti-terrorism proposal on democratic grounds, as suppression of expression by the government is undemocratic, and on the grounds of peace interests.

We fail to see how the criminal acts addressed by this proposal constitute -- in any way, shape or form -- a means of expression that should be protected under the law. Indeed, by their very nature, criminal acts run counter to the law.

Finally, the proposal also gives the government many powers of fund freezing and seizure, and fails to dictate how a "terrorist" will be defined, and also fails to specify the details of detainment in police custody - could suspicion of terrorist actions/connections warrant detainment?

As my colleague from Pallatium has pointed out, the proposal defines "terrorism" and, by extension, "terrorist" as one who engages in acts of terrorism. My esteemed colleague has also noted the two prior resolutions -- the Wolfish Convention and Habeus Corpus -- that lay out the conditions for arrest and detainment, as well as the treatment of those who are arrested and/or detained.

The people of Cluichstan kindly request that the representative from Aroden actually read the proposal before condemning it.

(OOC: I don't like dealing with RL examples IC, so I'll address the Contra question here. Yes, under this proposal, funding the Contras against the Sandanista government would have been illegal, and it was certainly illegal under US law anyway, given the way the Reagan administration went about it. And frankly, in my opinion, it should be illegal, both under US and international law.

ok, no pb about it:)

just to be exact it was legal until December 1983 when the Boland Amendment became effective



No, because the people of Cluichstan do not believe that the UN should favor one particular form of government over another.


i really think the UN should encourages democracy principles over "psychotic dictators";)

i really think the UN should encourages democracy principles over "psychotic dictators";)

We disagree. The UN should not advocate any form of government over another -- be it a democracy over a dictatorship or socialism over a theocracy run by a Teddy bear named Stinky.

We disagree. The UN should not advocate any form of government over another -- be it a democracy over a dictatorship or socialism over a theocracy run by a Teddy bear named Stinky.

I agree with the representative from Cluichstan. While I do favor the Federation's anarcho-socialist system of "government" because I see it as being the form most conducive to the liberty and prosperity necessary for a model state, I realize that other, more authoritarian systems can also function admirably.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

We disagree. The UN should not advocate any form of government over another -- be it a democracy over a dictatorship or socialism over a theocracy run by a Teddy bear named Stinky.

Two things we agree on in as many days. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship? (smirk)

I realize that other, more authoritarian systems can also function admirably.

Anarchy?
theocracy?
communism?
father best known state?
:fluffle:

authoritarian or benevolant dictatorships could be ok for developping nation

but once a Nation get a certain level of "education", "technology", and developpment
once nutrition, health and clothing are not widespraed everyday problems
=> these systems are not stable

development and democracy always come hand-in-hand
if you decide to stop democracy then development will soon suffer
and vice versa

We like our Libertarian Police State just fine, thank you.

Anarchy?
theocracy?
communism?
father best known state?
:fluffle:

authoritarian or benevolant dictatorships could be ok for developping nation

but once a Nation get a certain level of "education", "technology", and developpment
once nutrition, health and clothing are not widespraed everyday problems
=> these systems are not stable

development and democracy always come hand-in-hand
if you decide to stop democracy then development will soon suffer
and vice versa


I know we are getting way off topic here, but what you are saying simply isn't true. It is not the type of government, but the person/people running it that stops/starts development.

My nation is not a democracy (as I said) but it is pretty stable. We are developing, we are making advances. I have what I consider to be the best interests of my people at heart, and I look out for their concerns way more than mine, because mine are pretty much met (what with me being Queen and all).

However you can have a democracy where the leaders are just out for themselves, and for special interest groups who can afford to bribe them for their vote. And you can have an absolute dictator who will be the most beloved person in the nation because he/she cares about his people way more than an elected body would.

No one type of government is any better, and it is certainly not the place of one nation to decide whether nor not another nation would be better off governed as a democracy than a dictatorship.

development and democracy always come hand-in-hand
if you decide to stop democracy then development will soon suffer
and vice versaWe would note that L&E's last proposal liberalized our nation's freedoms stats, thus plunging us into official Anarchy status. (Luckily, we have since recovered.)

"Democracy," indeed. :D

I know we are getting way off topic here, but what you are saying simply isn't true. It is not the type of government, but the person/people running it that stops/starts development.

My nation is not a democracy (as I said) but it is pretty stable. We are developing, we are making advances. I have what I consider to be the best interests of my people at heart, and I look out for their concerns way more than mine, because mine are pretty much met (what with me being Queen and all).

However you can have a democracy where the leaders are just out for themselves, and for special interest groups who can afford to bribe them for their vote. And you can have an absolute dictator who will be the most beloved person in the nation because he/she cares about his people way more than an elected body would.

No one type of government is any better, and it is certainly not the place of one nation to decide whether nor not another nation would be better off governed as a democracy than a dictatorship.

Well said, Your Majesty.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

We would note that L&E's last proposal liberalized our nation's freedoms stats, thus plunging us into official Anarchy status. (Luckily, we have since recovered.)

"Democracy," indeed. :D

great, i was indeed wondering, if you managed to stop your complete breakdown of social order and put an end to the order imposed by Omigodtheykilledkenny's numerous biker gangs .;) Well done.

I have what I consider to be the best interests of my people at heart, and I look out for their concerns way more than mine, because mine are pretty much met (what with me being Queen and all).


your people is very lucky, they have Queen Lily as their head of government

but think of people of many nation who are not lucky as you, and who have psychotic dictators for government head, as for example the poor and unlucky people of Love and esterel who have ... me:p

your people is very lucky, they have Queen Lily as their head of government

but think of people of many nation who are not lucky as you, and who have psychotic dictators for government head, as for example the poor and unlucky people of Love and esterel who have ... me:p

But many people who have completely elected governments have totally crap ones, because the elected governments only pay attention to special interests and those who pay them the money. And - to be honest - if the Whiter Chicken Slaughter Foundation paid me several million guilders every year, I might be tempted to listen to them, over someone who didn't pay me at all, when drafting policies. (ok - that's not true, but you get the idea).

A lot of democracies have truly awful leaders who are leading the country to total and utter ruin. And a lot of dictatorships have fantastic leaders who are making the country the best place it can be.

So who are we to judge which one is right, and which one is wrong?

*snip*
So who are we to judge which one is right, and which one is wrong?

It seems Queen Lily is slowly becoming...one of us...

It seems Queen Lily is slowly becoming...one of us...

(smirk) See - when you say things like that it makes me re-evaluate my whole position :}

It's a good thing.

To actually get back on to the proposal for a moment, I have a question about "in times of war"

Who declares, or recognizes the war? Does it have to be declared, or can it be implied?

Example : A while back, in a nation called TilEnca (now sadly departed from the world), a group started to overthrow the government. It was not what you would call a war - more an uprising.

Would the proposal have covered this, since they were more or less an organized fighting force? Or would they have had to declare war first? And can a rebel group declare war, or does it have to be a nation that does that?

Do both sides have to recognize the war for the "in times of war" to apply? Or does only one nation have to recognize it?


Sorry - it just opened up a whole load of new questions for me, so.....

This example is purely a national issue, outside the purview of the draft resolution in question here.

This example is purely a national issue, outside the purview of the draft resolution in question here.

Sorry - I missed a bit.

Given the rebel group in TilEnca was fighting, and could claim it was at war, would I, as another nation, be permitted to finance it?

(Sorry - that was supposed to be part of the original question!)

No, that would be using a proxy group to fight a war for you.

No, that would be using a proxy group to fight a war for you.

So I am not permitted to fund one side of a war over the other, unless I am willing to get involved as well?

(Keep in mind that the group started the war without me, and then came to me for help after they ran in to trouble. I did not instigate the violence, nor the killing - it was just something I later went to supporting)

No, that would be interfering with the internal matters of another nation.

So the only way to use the "in time of war" thing is to actually declare war myself, and come to the aid of the terrorists that way?

If your government is going to act against another government, at least have the cojones to do so openly and directly.

Ok. That's fine for that. I don't really agree, but that's another matter.

My next question relates to this :-


by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population


Assuming that my band of happy warriors (or terrorists) could be sure they were not going to harm the civilian population, are they free to blow up power stations, railway tracks (without trains on them), commercial offices (at night, when they are empty) and so forth? They are not targeting the population, but are capable of bringing a government to its collective knees.

Would my happy band be classed as terrorists in this case?

[Assuming that my band of happy warriors (or terrorists) could be sure they were not going to harm the civilian population, are they free to blow up power stations, railway tracks (without trains on them), commercial offices (at night, when they are empty) and so forth? They are not targeting the population, but are capable of bringing a government to its collective knees.

Would my happy band be classed as terrorists in this case?

Targeting the aforementioned facilities would affect the civilian populace and would, therefore, be seen as directed at the civilian populace. Harm is not simply physical (killing, maiming, etc.). It can be indirect harm as well.

Disclaimer! I have not nor will I have the time to read he entire thread. I will comment on the actual proposal text and I apologise if I repeat what has already been pointed out.


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

DEFINES terrorism as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes,
Definition … This is a proposal not a dictionary. Is this necessary?

DECLARES that such acts are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them,
No Problem here

NOTING that any act of international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
No Problem other than the thought that a lot of this and the above point are stating the obvious. In a proposal which is character limited is it expedient to have these points?

RECOGNIZING the need to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
This definitely is not a required statement and should be merged with the above point.

URGES all member nations to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts,

RECOGNIZING the need for member states to complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism in their territories through all lawful means,

NOTING that every member nation has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in terrorist acts in another nation or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,
The Above 3 points are to my mind sufficiently covered in the Mandate section and as such there is no requirement to have them in the preamble.

MANDATES that all member nations shall:

(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
No problem

(b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;
Already covered by the word “Financing” in Mandate A

(c) Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities; andAlready covered by the word “Financing” in Mandate A

(d) Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets, economic resources, or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;
Already covered by the word “Financing” in Mandate A

MANDATES that all member nations shall:Repetitive, thus not necessary.

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support -- active or passive -- to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
No Problem

(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,
including by provision of early warning to other member nations by exchange of information;No Problem

(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or those who provide safe havens;
?? Confusing regarding safe havens remove the last part

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate, or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other member nations or their citizens;
Yup No problems here

(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation, or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts; andI note a lot of repetition in this proposal. You have defined terrorism. I suggest you expand your definition and rather than repeatedly state the above use the term you have defined.

(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;
This is covered by the Urges …. Part of the preamble regarding cross border cooperation of member nations

URGES all member nations to:

(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational
information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or
networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts; and

(d) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers, or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

Points A to d here would be better left to the individual nations in their quest to combat terrorism. Putting the points on the actual resolution could very well impede nations in the flexability required to adapt to the individual threat of terrorism to their nation.

In summary I find this is a proposal with some good ideas and it just needs to be rewritten so as to not constantly repeat previous items. If rewritten I would foresee support from my delegation to the UN.

VL.

Targeting the aforementioned facilities would affect the civilian populace and would, therefore, be seen as directed at the civilian populace. Harm is not simply physical (killing, maiming, etc.). It can be indirect harm as well.

But then it could be argued that, if indirect harm counts as terrorism, any action can be covered by that. Blowing up military bases affects the civilians, as it leaves them with less of a defence force to protect them. Further more shooting Private Jones (who is in the army) means that Private Jones' partner is now left without her, and the kids without a mother.

If you attack military vehicles on the public roads, or military trains, then you are also affecting the public indirectly as well, even though that was not your intention.

So - now I guess my question is - does it have to be the intention of my group to harm the civilian population, and if they end up hurting the civilian population by accident when they are attacking the military machine, are they exempt from being terrorists?


(I know - I am asking a lot of questions. But they are all logically leading from one to the next, and with every answer you give me I get a whole load of other questions. Plus, given my inherent dislike of people saying "terrorists are bad" without even wondering at their motivations, proposals like this bug me)

Definition … This is a proposal not a dictionary. Is this necessary?


Unfortunately, yes, it is, as certain member states have made an issue of who can be termed "terrorists" versus those who are "freedom fighters."

The rest of the comments made by my esteemed colleague will be taken into consideration. The people of Cluichstan appreciate the feedback.

Unfortunately, yes, it is, as certain member states have made an issue of who can be termed "terrorists" versus those who are "freedom fighters."

The rest of the comments made by my esteemed colleague will be taken into consideration. The people of Cluichstan appreciate the feedback.
It looks to me that if you expand the deffinition and remove the expanded points in the mandates section in favour of the now defined word "terrorism" and merge the three mandate sections into one it would tidy this up nicely and help with the charachter limitation problem.
VL.

But many people who have completely elected governments have totally crap ones, because the elected governments only pay attention to special interests and those who pay them the money. And - to be honest - if the Whiter Chicken Slaughter Foundation paid me several million guilders every year, I might be tempted to listen to them, over someone who didn't pay me at all, when drafting policies. (ok - that's not true, but you get the idea).

A lot of democracies have truly awful leaders who are leading the country to total and utter ruin. And a lot of dictatorships have fantastic leaders who are making the country the best place it can be.

So who are we to judge which one is right, and which one is wrong?

democracy = human rights = Human Right to have a say in the way he/her is government

Love and esterel is sad that many members in his forum at the moment have only few considerations for human Rights

Once again Love and esterel want to say that
UN = United nations
and not United people behind their computers

[

Targeting the aforementioned facilities would affect the civilian populace and would, therefore, be seen as directed at the civilian populace. Harm is not simply physical (killing, maiming, etc.). It can be indirect harm as well.

But what if the acts are part of a strategy of greater resistance against a vicious occupying force. When the Compadrian resistance blew up railway lines and power facilities used by the tyrannical central government during the Civil War, would they be considered now as terrorists?

It's too difficult to judge this using a broad definition, sometimes you have to judge these acts on a case by case basis.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

democracy = human rights = Human Right to have a say in the way he/her is government


That is not true. I can 100% say with absolute and total certainty that my people are happy despite the fact they have no say. They have what I think you would consider very good human rights. Free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. People are free to marry who they want, and not to marry at all. No slavery, no oppression, an independent judicial system to which I, myself, have to answer if I break the law (whether I am speeding, whacking people with my boomerang or attempting to commit genocide). The last Queen who attempted to remove these rights was not just accepted because she had the power - people objected and she was removed from office (okay - she was blown up and killed, but it did get her out of office).

Democracy is not a human right.


Love and esterel is sad that many members in his forum at the moment have only few considerations for human Rights


You haven't seen most of my posts I take it? I am pretty good at fighting for human rights in ALL nations, and it means they would apply in mine.


Once again Love and esterel want to say that
UN = United nations
and not United people behind their computers

I get that. I am full aware that my nation has people in it (ooc - not really) and that it is my duty to do the best by them that I can. And that is what I am here at the UN to do - to ensure their needs and requirements are best met. (ooc - again - I know they are not real)

Democracy is not a human right.

???


You haven't seen most of my posts I take it? I am pretty good at fighting for human rights in ALL nations, and it means they would apply in mine.

yes you are, and we approve

I am full aware that my nation has people in it (ooc - not really) and that it is my duty to do the best by them that I can. And that is what I am here at the UN to do - to ensure their needs and requirements are best met. (ooc - again - I know they are not real)

this is called "Father Knows Best State"

???


??? what?


yes you are, and we approve


And yet I am, what you would consider, a dictator.


this is called "Father Knows Best State"

And?

*snippety*

Democracy is not a human right.

*snip-snip*



We agree again.

We agree again.

Scary, isn't it? (smirk)

Just to get back on topic -

But then it could be argued that, if indirect harm counts as terrorism, any action can be covered by that. Blowing up military bases affects the civilians, as it leaves them with less of a defence force to protect them. Further more shooting Private Jones (who is in the army) means that Private Jones' partner is now left without her, and the kids without a mother.

If you attack military vehicles on the public roads, or military trains, then you are also affecting the public indirectly as well, even though that was not your intention.

So - now I guess my question is - does it have to be the intention of my group to harm the civilian population, and if they end up hurting the civilian population by accident when they are attacking the military machine, are they exempt from being terrorists?


(I know - I am asking a lot of questions. But they are all logically leading from one to the next, and with every answer you give me I get a whole load of other questions. Plus, given my inherent dislike of people saying "terrorists are bad" without even wondering at their motivations, proposals like this bug me)

the empire of Kirisubo was formed as the result of a civil war.

during the war years a lot of Lords were assasinated and many sabotage acts were carried out by ninja following the orders of their Lords.

would you call that terrorism? We view this as people doing there duty to their commanders.

don't modern commando's do a similar job on the battlefield as well and nobody considers those terrorists.

the empire of Kirisubo was formed as the result of a civil war.

during the war years a lot of Lords were assasinated and many sabotage acts were carried out by ninja following the orders of their Lords.

would you call that terrorism? We view this as people doing there duty to their commanders.

don't modern commando's do a similar job on the battlefield as well and nobody considers those terrorists.

The definition mentions "in times of war", so anything going on during civil war I think (and this is only "I think") is excluded.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would it be too much to ask.....


But then it could be argued that, if indirect harm counts as terrorism, any action can be covered by that. Blowing up military bases affects the civilians, as it leaves them with less of a defence force to protect them. Further more shooting Private Jones (who is in the army) means that Private Jones' partner is now left without her, and the kids without a mother.

If you attack military vehicles on the public roads, or military trains, then you are also affecting the public indirectly as well, even though that was not your intention.

So - now I guess my question is - does it have to be the intention of my group to harm the civilian population, and if they end up hurting the civilian population by accident when they are attacking the military machine, are they exempt from being terrorists?


(I know - I am asking a lot of questions. But they are all logically leading from one to the next, and with every answer you give me I get a whole load of other questions. Plus, given my inherent dislike of people saying "terrorists are bad" without even wondering at their motivations, proposals like this bug me)

With small revision:



The change highlighted (italics added):Howdy ho,

I can't see anything wrong with the draft in terms of it's actual content, but I have had a look, and tidied up a few spelling mistakes and numbered the clauses - that's just a style thing, but it also makes it easier to discuss the proposal.

The improvement to the definition is good - although I'm not sure that you need to include "international" in the first part of the definition, but that's not a big thing.

The United Nations:

DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.

FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organized and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activities that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger the lives and well-being of people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all States.

1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.

2. SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.

3. DECLARES that every nation has the duty to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

4. MANDATES that member states shall:
A. Prevent, suppress and criminalise the financing of international terrorism and
B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities

5. DETERMINED that member states shall:
A. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;
B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;
C. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and
D. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings related to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceedings.

6. URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter, and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists; forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups; and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.

Finally, I'd also like to add "7. Determined to remain seized on the matter" to the end - again, it's not a big thing, but it's a matter of style (the RL UN likes to add that to the end of resolutions, and I like proposals in the "old-school" style, as Miktivity once described it :) )

The definition mentions "in times of war", so anything going on during civil war I think (and this is only "I think") is excluded.

Moreover, this proposal is now focusing on international terrorism rather than domestic terrorism - civil war would be domestic, and outside the scope of the proposal

Moreover, this proposal is now focusing on international terrorism rather than domestic terrorism - civil war would be domestic, and outside the scope of the proposal

Ok. Since the other thing about indirect harm apparently isn't going to get an answer, I have a question about semantics.

Suppose there is a group called the HLA (Hyrule Liberation Army). They are rebels, but Hyrule has classed them as terrorists cause sometimes the HLA tend to blow things up (buildings, train stations - the usual sort of thing).

It is purely internal - the Hyrule authorities refuse to call it a civil war because they don't consider the HLA to be an army - just terrorists.


It is purely domestic - people in Hyrule formed the army, run the army and fight in the army.


Is there anything to stop me supporting them because I feel they are right? Or would that elevate it to international terrorism? (Keep in mind they are working in Hyrule, none of my people are involved in the fighting and blowing things up, and they take no direction from me about how to conduct their campaign).

And - I guess the follow on question would be - at what point does it become a war? If the HLA declare, but the government of Hyrule doesn't, are the HLA terrorist or warriors? And if they are warriors can I support them without falling afoul of the laws?

Ok. Since the other thing about indirect harm apparently isn't going to get an answer, I have a question about semantics.
I'll try and answer both for you - I did not see the indirect harm question till now :)

Suppose there is a group called the HLA (Hyrule Liberation Army). They are rebels, but Hyrule has classed them as terrorists cause sometimes the HLA tend to blow things up (buildings, train stations - the usual sort of thing).

It is purely internal - the Hyrule authorities refuse to call it a civil war because they don't consider the HLA to be an army - just terrorists.

It is purely domestic - people in Hyrule formed the army, run the army and fight in the army.

Is there anything to stop me supporting them because I feel they are right? Or would that elevate it to international terrorism? (Keep in mind they are working in Hyrule, none of my people are involved in the fighting and blowing things up, and they take no direction from me about how to conduct their campaign).

And - I guess the follow on question would be - at what point does it become a war? If the HLA declare, but the government of Hyrule doesn't, are the HLA terrorist or warriors? And if they are warriors can I support them without falling afoul of the laws?

Hmm....you like awkward scenarios don't you. :)

For a start, their activities would not be neccessarily terrorism - they are not targetting civilians - but that's irrelevant, as it's purely a domestic matter. They could do whatever they jolly well want if it is purely internal.

If you were to conduct, organize and/or finance the HLA across international borders - if you were to get involved in fighting and blowing things up, or funding their fighting and blowing things up, or organising their fighting and blowing things up, you would be turning this into state sponsored international terrorism. If you turned a blind eye to their organising, funding or training towards blowing things up, you'd be involved in international terrorism (although not as a state sponsor). If you said Pallatium supports the HLA, but did not contribute to the fight, you would not really be involved as far as I understand it.

As for when a war becomes a war, it's a civil war if the HLA have shown themselves to be a viable military force rather than a terrorist force (ie, they can occupy territory). And it becomes a international war if you declare war on Hyrule. It doesn't really matter what a civil war is called as it's all internal. It could be called geoffrey for all I care, I'm just using my understanding of the differences betweeen terrorist forces and military forces. International war is when one nation declares war on another.

But then it could be argued that, if indirect harm counts as terrorism, any action can be covered by that. Blowing up military bases affects the civilians, as it leaves them with less of a defence force to protect them. Further more shooting Private Jones (who is in the army) means that Private Jones' partner is now left without her, and the kids without a mother.

If you attack military vehicles on the public roads, or military trains, then you are also affecting the public indirectly as well, even though that was not your intention.
Indeed, although if you are targetting a commercial building which is mostly empty, they you are not targetting anything to do with the government - it's a comercial building. At least blowing up a military vehicle has a direct application towards harming the government. Blowing up a purely commercial building has no primary impact on the government.

So - now I guess my question is - does it have to be the intention of my group to harm the civilian population, and if they end up hurting the civilian population by accident when they are attacking the military machine, are they exempt from being terrorists?Pretty much, yeah. Of course, it's still going to become a criminal matter.

I'll try and answer both for you - I did not see the indirect harm question till now :)


Then I take back my snippyness :}


Hmm....you like awkward scenarios don't you. :)


(ooc - this situation comes from either South Africa under Aparthied, or the actions of the IRA supported by some Americans)


For a start, their activities would not be neccessarily terrorism - they are not targetting civilians - but that's irrelevant, as it's purely a domestic matter. They could do whatever they jolly well want if it is purely internal.


(grin) You know what that sounds like, right?


If you were to conduct, organize and/or finance the HLA across international borders - if you were to get involved in fighting and blowing things up, or funding their fighting and blowing things up, or organising their fighting and blowing things up, you would be turning this into state sponsored international terrorism. If you turned a blind eye to their organising, funding or training towards blowing things up, you'd be involved in international terrorism (although not as a state sponsor). If you said Pallatium supports the HLA, but did not contribute to the fight, you would not really be involved as far as I understand it.


Right.... That makes sense.


As for when a war becomes a war, it's a civil war if the HLA have shown themselves to be a viable military force rather than a terrorist force (ie, they can occupy territory). And it becomes a international war if you declare war on Hyrule. It doesn't really matter what a civil war is called as it's all internal. It could be called geoffrey for all I care, I'm just using my understanding of the differences betweeen terrorist forces and military forces. International war is when one nation declares war on another.


The international part I got, it was just the point when terrorist actions turn in to civil war. And given the definition you have provided (which I will not hold you to in future, cause you might want to change it) I can work with that.


Indeed, although if you are targetting a commercial building which is mostly empty, they you are not targetting anything to do with the government - it's a comercial building. At least blowing up a military vehicle has a direct application towards harming the government. Blowing up a purely commercial building has no primary impact on the government.


Except that the building might be the post office, the telephone exchange, a huge ISP. It might be owned by supporters of the government I am trying to overthrow, so by destroying it I am weakening the government. So - my arguement would be - I am attacking the government, not the civilian population. And if I am not harming any civilians (because being a concientious terrorist I check the building is empty first) then I would argue that it is an attack on the government, that has indirect effect on the general population. And therefore should not be considered terrorism under this proposal, even though it blatantly is.


Pretty much, yeah. Of course, it's still going to become a criminal matter.

(smirk) I would damn well hope so - there is little point in overthrowing the government if you are going to obey their law.

I will not support this resolution unless first of all a clause is added about the problems that lead to terrorism: repressive regimes, unfair distribution of the world's wealth, lack of primary goods such as food, shelter, education and healthcare, discrimination and racism, and meddling in other nation's affairs. All this resolution is about now is a kind of war on terrorism which will only combat the symptoms, but not the cause.

Secondly, there has been discussion before about terrorist being freedom fighters for some. According to UN resolution "Citizen Rule Required", we demand of all UN nations that citizens have some form of self rule. Why do we not extend that to other nations? If citizens are battling for some form of democracy, something that we ourselves consider a requirement for UN membership, then why do we count them as terrorists?

These are my concerns, and they are large concerns, because this resolution currently is a warmongering beast with no regard for peace and liberty.

OOC: And this resolution is exactly what I don't like about USA foreign policy. Just macho-muscle-showing, but not a second's thought about why we have such a thing as terrorism, and how we can prevent it. Because in this way, it's a poor attempt at eradicating it, which will never work because we don't look at the causes.

I will not support this resolution unless...<shrugs> No huge loss. Just need 157 other delegates and 51% of the electorate and we are sorted. I'm not going to worry if one nation has grievances - I'll listen to them and if they are genuine I'll comment - but to be honest, none of yours are genuine.first of all a clause is added about the problems that lead to terrorism: repressive regimes, unfair distribution of the world's wealth, lack of primary goods such as food, shelter, education and healthcare, discrimination and racism, and meddling in other nation's affairs. All this resolution is about now is a kind of war on terrorism which will only combat the symptoms, but not the cause.I'm pretty certain most of that has been dealt with in past resolutions, and it would absolutely pointless writing them out again.

Of course, if you want to be positive and suggest how you'd improve the proposal instead of being negative and not doing anything to improve the proposal, I'm all ears.Secondly, there has been discussion before about terrorist being freedom fighters for some. Yes, I know, and it's totally, totally irrelevant. I could label myself king of all apricots and it's just a label which means nothing. So I could pretend to be a freedom fighter, but that changes nothing. If I commit terrorist acts I'm a terrorist. Simple as.Secondly, there has been discussion before about terrorist being freedom fighters for some. According to UN resolution "Citizen Rule Required", we demand of all UN nations that citizens have some form of self rule. Why do we not extend that to other nations? If citizens are battling for some form of democracy, something that we ourselves consider a requirement for UN membership, then why do we count them as terrorists?So you want the UN to legislate on non-UN nations? That's just so illegal and so.....well, dumb (I hate being negative and use such words, but I'm struggling to think of a semi-positive word to express how dumb that is - I'm not having a go at you personally Groot since you are normally fairly intelligent and well reasoned, but I'm disappointed you think you can legislate on outside the UN).:rolleyes: These are my concerns, and they are large concerns, because this resolution currently is a warmongering beast with no regard for peace and liberty.Those are not large concerns at all - very minor and very inaccurate is a more apt description. Peace, liberty and security are my three priorities when I started on my international co-operation and prevention against terrorism proposal a long time ago. Oh, and it's not warmongering either - why do you think it is? It stops nations sponsoring international terrorism, which is a good thing. And this resolution is exactly what I don't like about USA foreign policy. I don't like US foreign policy either - although that's got absolutely nothing to do with this proposal at all. If I was the US I would label any tom, dick or harry with a grudge against the US as a terrorist and be happy when a cruise missile went their way.Just macho-muscle-showing, but not a second's thought about why we have such a thing as terrorism, and how we can prevent it. Because in this way, it's a poor attempt at eradicating it, which will never work because we don't look at the causes.It's not about eradicating - it's about protecting civilians.:rolleyes:

Honestly groot, you should learn from Pallatium - (s)he doesn't agree with the proposal (although I think (s)he is happier with it now than (s)he was), but (s)he has positively suggested improvements, asked genuine accurate questions, and more importantly been positive about the whole process.

I will not support this resolution unless first of all a clause is added about the problems that lead to terrorism: repressive regimes, unfair distribution of the world's wealth, lack of primary goods such as food, shelter, education and healthcare, discrimination and racism, and meddling in other nation's affairs. All this resolution is about now is a kind of war on terrorism which will only combat the symptoms, but not the cause.

Ambassador Lane, you must be forgetting about all sorts of resolutions that have already attacked the causes of terrorism. We have a number of resolutions that address such things as education, healthcare, discrimination and racism. Many resolutions are aimed at providing the human rights that are discouraged under the repressive regimes you mentioned. It seems to me that there are already resolutions targetting many of the causes of terrorism, and fulfillling your desire to see the causes of terrorism addressed in this proposal would simply result in redundancy and the oversimplification of the complexity of those important issues that you mentioned.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The United Nations:

DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.

FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organized and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activities that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger the lives and well-being of people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all States.

1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.

2. SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.

3. DECLARES that every nation has the duty to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

4. MANDATES that member states shall:
A. Prevent, suppress and criminalise the financing of international terrorism and
B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities

5. DETERMINED that member states shall:
A. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;
B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;
C. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and
D. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings related to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceedings.

6. URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter, and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists; forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups; and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.

Finally, I'd also like to add "7. Determined to remain seized on the matter" to the end - again, it's not a big thing, but it's a matter of style (the RL UN likes to add that to the end of resolutions, and I like proposals in the "old-school" style, as Miktivity once described it :) )

OOC: Sorry about not replying sooner, but I was out of town on business travel for the past few days. I'm going to have to forego addressing the questions that have been posed in my absence, as I simply haven't the time unfortunately, but I think Hirota's done a pretty good job of fielding them anyway. This most recent draft looks good to me, though I haven't checked the character count (which, incidentally, is the main reason why I cut the "seized on this matter" clause in an earlier revision).

OOC: Sorry about not replying sooner, but I was out of town on business travel for the past few days. I'm going to have to forego addressing the questions that have been posed in my absence, as I simply haven't the time unfortunately, but I think Hirota's done a pretty good job of fielding them anyway. This most recent draft looks good to me, though I haven't checked the character count (which, incidentally, is the main reason why I cut the "seized on this matter" clause in an earlier revision). It's 3412 words including spaces.

Now that I'm back from business travel and my recent ban, I'm resurrecting this.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/bumpsign1.jpg

Don't make me do this again. :p

Ahhh, how very insular and short sighted.


This will teach me to respond then forget about a thread for so long but feel I should answer what was said. Thank you for the compliment

And how about those who don't threaten your nation, who reside within your borders, yet plan to disrupt the government and security of a neighbouring nation?

depends. Do I hate the nation or cuase? If it harms what I care about then sure, they will be punished. If I happen to agree with them then I view them as men fighting for a noble cuase.

How would you feel if the positions were reversed - if a nation harboured or indeed sponsored groups with intentions to commit terrorist attacks on your soil?

anyone cares about my nation enough to do that? I'll resort to what means I can(spies, assisans, diplomacy) to get them backbut if it fails, it fails.

So, for example (and I mean strictly if my government was as short sighted, naive, insular and thick headed) Cuation, you look to your own borders, you protect your own people, and if you harbour terrorists who target my nation, I'll ensure that they are resolved myself, regardless of your borders or your governments complaints. If that means invasion, so be it. My armed forces can be very nasty when they set their mind to it, and since you'll deal with terrorism your own way, we would do the same, trampling all over your nation in the process. Shame about your country becoming an annex of ours though.

I'm not suicidal, I would bend over backwards to help you arrest these men becuase your that much bigger then me

My government seeks international co-operation against terrorism - I'm sure most of the nations within the UN can deal with their own issues and deal with them however their law permits. But Hirota seeks to promote international co-operation against terrorism. Terrorism is not confined to a single location or a single issue, but by working together, stamping out terrorism and sharing best practices to reduce the risk to innocents.

one persons evil is another mans hero or something. I dislike being too friendly with others and would rather deal with things on an indivdual basis rather then combine forces to fight something I might be on the side of

National Soverignty be damned, this is about protecting civilians!

Feel free to kill mine, I fought against them for so long and will do perhaps in the future, I don't really mind.

Now onto the subject in hand, this would affect the arms, my nation sell across to any who will pay. If someone pays a company good money for a product(say a bunch of bombs for an unspecified purpose), this would force the company to turn it down. Unable to sell their products, I would be blamed and have to deal with revolts.

Now if any flee into my lands and I know a nation wishes for them to be handed over, I will contact that nation and seize the said person. If the nation has a problem with me using an orgnisation for my own ends(not that I have dabbelled in such things,) then they can take it up with me in a diplomatic setting. I see no reason to support this and I am still uneasy on condeming any unable to hold land as evil men when they fight for what they belive in in ways they can.

OC: I'm not even sure why I posted what I did on page 2 or so, I'm sorry for the poor quality.

With a few minor tweaks, I will be submitting this proposal Monday morning. If anyone's got any further comments or suggestions, please throw 'em out there before then.

<shrugs> No huge loss. Just need 157 other delegates and 51% of the electorate and we are sorted. I'm not going to worry if one nation has grievances - I'll listen to them and if they are genuine I'll comment - but to be honest, none of yours are genuine.I'm pretty certain most of that has been dealt with in past resolutions, and it would absolutely pointless writing them out again.

Some points might have been mentioned in other resolutions, but not in the context of terrorism (of course, presuming that we have a major terrorism issue on the NS world - I certainly don't, but I don't follow International Incidents). If you're writing a resolution about terrorism, there should be at least *some* recognition that you can't beat terrorism with violence and sanctions. Describing that as not genuine is typical of this resolution, which fails to see the social factors associated with terrorism.

Of course, if you want to be positive and suggest how you'd improve the proposal instead of being negative and not doing anything to improve the proposal, I'm all ears.

Not submitting would be preferable. Call me negative, but I really find this a horrible resolution that won't have any positive effects and which ignores the root of the problems it describes.

Yes, I know, and it's totally, totally irrelevant. I could label myself king of all apricots and it's just a label which means nothing. So I could pretend to be a freedom fighter, but that changes nothing. If I commit terrorist acts I'm a terrorist. Simple as.

No, not simple as. If a group of people is fighting repression, is fighting for democracy, but uses violence, they can be called terrorists, and I can't support them, even if they are achieving a worthwhile goal. Either I'd have to do more in secret, or we'd have to change the goalposts each time a bunch of terrorists is trying to achieve something good.

So you want the UN to legislate on non-UN nations?

No. My point is that we, as the UN, have said that all members must have some kind of democracy. But if a so-called group of terrorists is fighting to achieve that, we can't support them.

(and that goes for all nations, whether in the UN or not. Sure, we can't legislate on non-UN nations, but does that mean that I can support terrorists in non-UN nations?)

Those are not large concerns at all - very minor and very inaccurate is a more apt description. Peace, liberty and security are my three priorities when I started on my international co-operation and prevention against terrorism proposal a long time ago. Oh, and it's not warmongering either - why do you think it is? It stops nations sponsoring international terrorism, which is a good thing.

That entirely depends. But peace, liberty and security don't feature greatly in the resolution text. Maybe in your intentions, but show it to me then. Don't just go on about refraining from this, combatting that, deny that. Say something about things that actually matter to prevent terrorism. Talk about peace and cooperation, not combatting and denying.

I don't like US foreign policy either - although that's got absolutely nothing to do with this proposal at all. If I was the US I would label any tom, dick or harry with a grudge against the US as a terrorist and be happy when a cruise missile went their way.It's not about eradicating - it's about protecting civilians.:rolleyes:

It does have to do with this proposal, because this does exactly what the US does wrong. Only talking about more violence, more division, more fighting, as if that helps one bit in getting rid of terrorism. I won't pretend that my way will totally get rid of terrorism, but it has a lot more going for it than this.

Honestly groot, you should learn from Pallatium - (s)he doesn't agree with the proposal (although I think (s)he is happier with it now than (s)he was), but (s)he has positively suggested improvements, asked genuine accurate questions, and more importantly been positive about the whole process.

Well, I'm not positive about this whole process. I'm worried. This is not the direction the UN should go in my opinion. I have suggested improvements though. Not "change this word to that", but on a larger scale: change the idea behind it. If that's not to your liking, fine, but don't blame me for being negative about a resolution that provokes so much negativism.

depends. Do I hate the nation or cuase? If it harms what I care about then sure, they will be punished. If I happen to agree with them then I view them as men fighting for a noble cuase.The ends do not justify the means. A noble cause does not mean committing evil acts. By evil I mean targeting the populace.one persons evil is another mans hero or something.I know the phrase you mean, but this proposal removes all the justifications – if you kill civilians, you are committing terrorist acts. I don’t care if you are fighting for the freedom of the fluffiest, nicest bunnies on the planet, blow up innocents and you put yourself in the firing line.

Of course, if a group did not blow up innocents, but rather went for the government, then they would fall outside the definition and would not be international terrorists. In essence, their cause is irrelevant, it’s their deeds.Feel free to kill mine, I fought against them for so long and will do perhaps in the future, I don't really mind. I don’t think I’d need to kill them – if this is how you treat your populace they’ll be the ones who will get any possible assistance.

Now onto the subject in hand, this would affect the arms, my nation sell across to any who will pay. If someone pays a company good money for a product (say a bunch of bombs for an unspecified purpose), this would force the company to turn it down. Unable to sell their products, I would be blamed and have to deal with revolts.Ahhh, so now we find out the real problems…your worried your sponsorship/implicit support of terrorism and terrorist acts is going to be exposed and the UN will put a stop to it. Should we be sympathetic?

Nations have a collective responsibility to ensure that weapons are not in the wrong hands. Your insular short sighted stance on this matter is disturbing.

Some points might have been mentioned in other resolutions, but not in the context of terrorism (of course, presuming that we have a major terrorism issue on the NS world - I certainly don't, but I don't follow International Incidents). If you're writing a resolution about terrorism, there should be at least *some* recognition that you can't beat terrorism with violence and sanctions. Describing that as not genuine is typical of this resolution, which fails to see the social factors associated with terrorism.I’d prefer to see the UN address social factors separately, and/or nations address those internally – of course social equality is important, and I normally seek to encourage such resolutions. Even if we wanted to include this in the proposal text, we don’t have the space. I don’t see it as a huge problem, for the reasons listed earlier, but something we might have added had we the space.No, not simple as. If a group of people is fighting repression, is fighting for democracy, but uses violence, they can be called terrorists, and I can't support them, even if they are achieving a worthwhile goal.Not strictly true – it depends on how they direct their violence. On innocents? Terrorism. On the government or armed forces? Not covered by the proposal. Either I'd have to do more in secret, or we'd have to change the goalposts each time a bunch of terrorists is trying to achieve something good.Good or bad, the aims do not justify the means. Of course, Hirota recognizes there may be times when we wish to support a group in a neighboring nation struggling to spread democracy. But should ignore their actions? Should be ignore the attacks on innocents? Time and time again Hirota has asserted that the ends should not justify the means, and this is another example of this case.It does have to do with this proposal, because this does exactly what the US does wrong.You mean train up terrorists, only to have them turn around and fight them? Or blithely ignore the international communities efforts to establish a consensus? Because this does neither.[/quote]Only talking about more violence, more division, more fighting, as if that helps one bit in getting rid of terrorism.[/quote]This doesn’t get rid of terrorism either. It’s targeting international terrorism – when nation A helps a terrorist group out to get nation B. It’s not trying to change domestic terrorism, and if those groups don’t target citizens it does not affect them either.

The ends do not justify the means. A noble cause does not mean committing evil acts. By evil I mean targeting the populace.


Normally I would agree, but if the populace you are attacking are supporting the repression - if they are making guns, repeatedly voting in the government that is doing the oppressing and actually taking part in it, then I say they are legitimate targets.

Further more - the thing I find wrong about this is that it is written by people who have never found themselves in a position where they don't have the luxary of right and wrong, good and evil - only what is necessary. And sometimes - it is.


I know the phrase you mean, but this proposal removes all the justifications – if you kill civilians, you are committing terrorist acts. I don’t care if you are fighting for the freedom of the fluffiest, nicest bunnies on the planet, blow up innocents and you put yourself in the firing line.


Again - sometimes it is a necessity to by pass the idea of right and wrong and good and evil and end up with what is necessary.

Keep in mind the UN has - in its past - accepted the genocide - the destruction of an entire race - can be necessary.

So why not terrorism?



Of course, if a group did not blow up innocents, but rather went for the government, then they would fall outside the definition and would not be international terrorists. In essence, their cause is irrelevant, it’s their deeds. I don’t think I’d need to kill them – if this is how you treat your populace they’ll be the ones who will get any possible assistance.


And how far does the government extend to? People who work for it? Caretakers in the buildings? Its IT staff? People who sell the government supplies?

The ends do not justify the means

Depends, a stable land for the first time by being ruthess or land collapse into further civil war by taking the nice guy option. Which do you think is better? For me, it is the first one but sometimes, to win against whatever you are fighting, regrettable mesures are taken. However I respect if you would go the second option.

A noble cause does not mean committing evil acts

For some reason I feel that every evil act has a "noble" cuase behind it. Anyway to the person concerned, it may well be worth the evil.

By evil I mean targeting the populace.

My version of evil is bombing(the plane versions), animal right groups and zoo's with too small cages.

Incidently what happens if someone wants to blow up...say a goverment office for milatry affairs but it is in fact a civilian office for some company? What then?

I know the phrase you mean, but this proposal removes all the justifications – if you kill civilians, you are committing terrorist acts

Though I prefer armies if a conflict must come about, sometimes peace is impossible and you have no army. Should they let an evil bloodthirsty tyrant alone? How do you propose they fight, try to get into the guarded goverment buildings? I can't recall any sucess with that tactic

Of course if the building is a tax building, most there will be civilians who are then killed? Is that justifiable or terroisim under the laws proposed?

Part of the problem is that over time, the goal of overthrowing the evil is still there but the tyrants people is blamed as well, people become embittered and will kill innocents, as far as my limited understanding works. Am I wrong?

I would rather they learn we are not all bad rather then make a sort of martyr by imprisoning,executing said embittered person.

If killing civilians is the only regrettable way of winning, do we condem them or do we seek to sort out the problems?

I don’t care if you are fighting for the freedom of the fluffiest, nicest bunnies on the planet, blow up innocents and you put yourself in the firing line.


If your in a democratic place then I can't see why anybody should resort to such moves. If however your enemy won't negoiate/you live in a country where your voice can't be heard, how do propose they save the fluffiest, nicest bunnies on the planet?

Of course, if a group did not blow up innocents, but rather went for the government, then they would fall outside the definition and would not be international terrorists

This I agree with

In essence, their cause is irrelevant, it’s their deeds.

ah so millions are being killed but then the suffering kill civilians in retaltion, they are condemened. Yet a evil man wants to userp power from the kindest ruler in the world, destroying the nations defences/army, it is legit?

I don’t think I’d need to kill them – if this is how you treat your populace they’ll be the ones who will get any possible assistance.

if they revolt, I will do what is needed to put it down. Otherwise I wouldn't say I'm too harsh but if the revolters decide to lure my army by killing civilians first but found themselves unable to create an army, would you not be forced to help me?

Ahhh, so now we find out the real problems

not really, after all I could claim some politcal troublemaker was a terroisit, fake the evidence and force someone to hand him over as I understand it

your worried your sponsorship/implicit support of terrorism and terrorist acts is going to be exposed and the UN will put a stop to it

I never said I did that, the companies may refuse to serve someone but if they allow people to buy what they need, I'm not going to stop them. The UN however would cripple many good companies in Cuation.

Should we be sympathetic?

possibly to the unemployed*shrug*

Nations have a collective responsibility to ensure that weapons are not in the wrong hands

As far as my nation is concerned, none have yet.

Your insular short sighted stance on this matter is disturbing.

there will always be killing, my nation can take advantage of it to help build itself up. If we just sell to armies, it can still be used against us, I would say it is the same risk

Just out of curiousity, but does this


Article 6

§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.


cover your entire proposal?

Normally I would agree, but if the populace you are attacking are supporting the repression - if they are making guns, repeatedly voting in the government that is doing the oppressing and actually taking part in it, then I say they are legitimate targets.

Further more - the thing I find wrong about this is that it is written by people who have never found themselves in a position where they don't have the luxary of right and wrong, good and evil - only what is necessary. And sometimes - it is.

1. If they are making guns, then they are not innocents, they are part of the arms making industry. That's a different kettle of fish. If they are forced to make weapons, then you would be better of going for the source of the supression. That's not an ethical issue - it's simple common sense. Intelligent groups who want to have a level of public support don't blow up their potential supporters. moreover, it doesn't hurt the government, it galvanises their support.

2. If they are electing the government in free and fair elections, then it's a diplomatic process and those who partake in terrorism should accept that. If the electorate are the victims of intimidation and are forced to vote for the government, then they are the victims, and you really don't need to blow them up, you need to liberate. of course you might take a few out, but they would not be the primary targets.

And how far does the government extend to? People who work for it? Caretakers in the buildings? Its IT staff? People who sell the government supplies? It's all relative. In theory any "elected" (spurious or otherwise) member of the government, the buildings, the military and other security forces are certainly legitimate. I'd say the ones you listed above are legitimate sources of collateral damage - if they were in the building you blew up at the time it would not be a big thing.Just out of curiousity, but does this
Article 6
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.
cover your entire proposal?Partially, but not entirely. In fact I'd suggest outproposal gives you more leeway in participation. That section of the resolution sounds pretty clear that you should not be supporting acts in another country regardless.
Interesting.....

I come with a message from Cluichstani Foreign Minister Sheik Retep bin Cluich. He regrets that, due to pressing domestic issues, Ambassador Nadnerb bin Cluich has been recalled to Cluichabad for consultations. Although the ambassador had planned to submit this proposal for official consideration yesterday, his absence made this impossible. He hopes to be back in these hallowed halls by next week, though, and will submit the proposal upon his return.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,
Ambassador Petrus Flumens
The Holy Empire of Cluichium

I'm glad a decent proposal on this subject has finally hit the floor. SqR is totally for. :D

we would never support a anti-terroism proposal, simply because no matter how hard you try, you cant define what is terrorism/who is a terrorist in so far as it is one group because it will still cover others (the old 'one man's terroist is another's freedom fighter' addage). not to mention, you can not fight terrorism without encroching on individuals rights and liberties, which could go against some already passed resolutions.

I'll only reply to this, because that seems to be the main poin tof our disagreement.

The ends do not justify the means. A noble cause does not mean committing evil acts. By evil I mean targeting the populace.I know the phrase you mean, but this proposal removes all the justifications – if you kill civilians, you are committing terrorist acts. I don’t care if you are fighting for the freedom of the fluffiest, nicest bunnies on the planet, blow up innocents and you put yourself in the firing line.

The population might not be innocent at all. They could support a dictator. Think of a situation where a minority group rules the majority with force. Targeting the population can be a valid option then for a freedom fighter.

On a side note, you were quoting me and someone else unattributed, which makes it difficult to see who wrote what. It now looks like everything you quoted came from my hand. I'd prefer it that if you quote more than 1 person in a post, you'd attribute the quotes. Thanks.

Having assumed the seat formerly occupied by the Sultanate of Cluichstan, the delegation from the Holy Empire of Cluichium has decided to pick up the sultanate's unfinished business. As such, a final draft of this proposal will be formally submitted in the coming hours. We ask that everyone please support it in the hopes that this important issue can be addressed by this austere body in a thoughtful manner.

Respectfully,
Ambassador Petrus Flumens
The Holy Empire of Cluichium

(OOC: Please support this in honour of the unfortunately departed nation of Cluichstan! :D )

(OOC: Please support this in honour of the unfortunately departed nation of Cluichstan! :D )
as stated above (as the cyberian plains) we will never support an anti terror resolution. besides the fluidity of the terms terrorist and terrorism, it cuts back on civil liberties too

as stated above (as the cyberian plains) we will never support an anti terror resolution. besides the fluidity of the terms terrorist and terrorism, it cuts back on civil liberties too

No it doesn't - read the last 6 or so pages - most of the questions have been asked by Pallantium and have been answered, and I believe that it does not significantly impact civil liberties either (unless you start blowing people up of course, then civil liberties start to go out the window for those in question).

Moreover, I'd argue the definition of terrorism is strong enough to be used in a resolution, as it concentrates on what is fundamentally important (the lives of citizens and innocents) rather than efforts to justify the possibly unjustifyable. Yes, there are people who claim they are freedom fighters. But I don't care if they call themselves high school cheerleaders - if you deliberately blow up innocents, you have committed an act of terrorism.

Moreover, this proposal is only targetted towards international terrorism - the sponsoring or harbouring of terrorists against another nation. Domestic terrorism is outside the scope of the proposal.

The delegation from Cluichstan will be returning to this austere body soon and will submit this proposal at that time. Thanks to everyone who supported it in our absence.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

(OOC: Woke up this morning to find that Cluichstan had been resurrected. Don't know why the change, but I'm not going to question it. I'll be back in here fulltime once my UN membership is approved. :D )

OOC: make sure Cluichium is out of the UN first!

(OOC: Thanks for the reminder. I had actually forgotten to do that.)

(OOC: Okay, I'm completely back now! Surprisingly, I didn't have to wait for people to endorse me all over again. My endorsements were reset as soon as I rejoined the UN. Who knew? Anyway, as I said, I'll submit this proposal officially on Monday morning after the weekly purge of the proposal list. Please make any comments before then -- just, please, not this bloody "freedom fighter" stuff. It's been done to death, and if you can't get past it, just don't vote for this proposal.)

(OOC: Okay, I'm completely back now! Surprisingly, I didn't have to wait for people to endorse me all over again. My endorsements were reset as soon as I rejoined the UN. Who knew? Anyway, as I said, I'll submit this proposal officially on Monday morning after the weekly purge of the proposal list. Please make any comments before then -- just, please, not this bloody "freedom fighter" stuff. It's been done to death, and if you can't get past it, just don't vote for this proposal.)

I'm thinking of writing an FAQ for this topic - which hopefully might stop all the repeated questions.

Hirota, that's an excellent suggestion.

Where is the final draft? I can't tell which version has been chosen as kosher.

Hirota, that's an excellent suggestion.

Where is the final draft? I can't tell which version has been chosen as kosher.

was it this one:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9843161&postcount=153 ?

If you want (and have the space), I'd be grateful if you add a single line to the end including my co-authorship. But it's no biggie.

Ah, ok. Because the 7 was optional, I missed it. (And do you really need to add that? I think it makes no sense to 'remain seized of the matter', given we have the repeal function.)

Ah, ok. Because the 7 was optional, I missed it. (And do you really need to add that? I think it makes no sense to 'remain seized of the matter', given we have the repeal function.)

Not really, it's only because I like playing things "old school." I suppose it means little beyond underlining the UN's determination on the matter, but I think it looks more complete with such a conclusion.

It's not needed.

(OOC: Okay, I'm completely back now! Surprisingly, I didn't have to wait for people to endorse me all over again. My endorsements were reset as soon as I rejoined the UN. Who knew? Anyway, as I said, I'll submit this proposal officially on Monday morning after the weekly purge of the proposal list. Please make any comments before then -- just, please, not this bloody "freedom fighter" stuff. It's been done to death, and if you can't get past it, just don't vote for this proposal.)

Ok. I am done with the freedom fighter stuff.

How about the UNBELIEVABLE assult on civil liberties stuff? Can I start with that now?

Ok. I am done with the freedom fighter stuff.

How about the UNBELIEVABLE assult on civil liberties stuff? Can I start with that now?

Go for it.

And a FAQ is a great idea, Hirota.

Ok. I am done with the freedom fighter stuff.

How about the UNBELIEVABLE assult on civil liberties stuff? Can I start with that now?

This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act
As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

FAQ’s for Combating Terrorism proposal

This post is intended to supply answers to the questions that have tended to pop up at one time or another during the formation of this proposal. It is hoped that by placing all these questions in one place (complete with answer) that instead of seeing the same issues raised and answered, member states will be able to read this topic and realise their concerns have already been addressed and/or considered.

This document will be updated as neccessary.

1. Defining international terrorism (“but they are freedom fighters?”)
This is normally the first issue raised by member states. I personally recognise there are going to be situations when member states would sympathise with a neighbouring group of “freedom fighters” in a different country fighting against a brutal regime.

But, ultimately, it is not their title or their justifications which should be considered. It is firmly believed that actions should be judged above that of names or motivations.

The author’s intentions are threefold:

To protect innocents and non-combatants from terrorism
To prevent the sponsorship, sheltering or funding of terrorism
To encourage international cooperation in terrorism.

For defining international terrorism, the first one is the most relevant, thus that is the condition on which terrorism is judged. If a group targets primarily and deliberately the civilian population then they fall within this definition.

The second part of the definition is more straightforward. As this proposal only deals with international terrorism, the organization has to be either based in, sponsored by, or trained by another nation.

Thus we ignore issues about “is group A freedom fighters?” and instead focus on their actions. If they have a grudge against a government, they should be targeting primarily the government. Not innocents.

Of course, if a group is “legitimately” targeting the government and reducing civilian casualties to a minimum, then there is no legislation or restrictions on this matter. Please note that member states can still declare war on you if you are sponsoring a group, and blowing up buildings is still going to be a criminal act in most nations!

2. National Sovereignty
This proposal is confined to international terrorism – domestic terrorism remains unaffected. They are internal matters not dealt with by this proposal.

The only effect this proposal has on national sovereignty is it denies you the right to sponsor terrorism in another country, which if you were a true national sovereignist you should be against anyway.

3. Civil liberties.
This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act
As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

4. I want to be able to decide what is and is not terrorism!
That’s fine, you can. You can’t decide what international terrorism is though. The definition above is a good starting place for you to decide what is domestic terrorism, but we are not in the business of meddling in national sovereignty too much.

5. I want to be able to decide what is and is not international terrorism!
The problem with this is that the nations in question will not agree what is international terrorism. Moreover, there are nations who have flatly stated they would not support any proposal without a definition

The definition reached here took several months and several contributions to bring it to the form it is today. It is the product of collaboration and observation by multiple member states.

6. I don’t like the proposal.
Okay, well tell us why, and better still, tell us what you’d do to improve it. If we agree, we can change the proposal if it fails to reach quorum.

Don’t just say “we won’t support this.” Explain why, and then we can understand and try and improve.

Well done! Thanks!

This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act
As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

See - "normal people" is just SUCH a misleading term. Normal people commit terrorism you know. Infact - before someone commits a terrorist act, they generally are a normal person (on the basis that "normal" means "they haven't actually committed a crime yet")

I will get more in to this later (cause I should not be doing this from work), but generally it's how nations are going to patrol this that is the issue.

See - "normal people" is just SUCH a misleading term. Normal people commit terrorism you know. Infact - before someone commits a terrorist act, they generally are a normal person (on the basis that "normal" means "they haven't actually committed a crime yet")Yeah that's fine, although if someone was planning terrorism and there was enough evidence of this then member states could act as their legal systems permitted.

I will get more in to this later (cause I should not be doing this from work), but generally it's how nations are going to patrol this that is the issue.The same as they would others, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Hirota

The United Nations:

DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.


What evidence will be required to support such a claim? And can it be done with one accusation? For example there is an explosion at the local high school (which sometimes happens), and two people who died in the blast are implicated in it, and the government of the country says that they were doing it with a motive in mind, and that The Army Of The Flying Monkeys is a terrorist group. However my government believes that isn't true. Are we forced to accept their evidence? Or is there an international standard that has to be applied? (If the people are dead, you can not bring them to trial, so neither of the fair trial resolutions apply). And if we disagree with them - their evidence doesn't match our level of evidentiary support (ooc - yeah, I watched Legally Blonde last night), do we have to accept it and call The Army Of The Flying Monkeys terrorists, or do we get to make our own mind up?


FURTHER DEFINES international terrorism as that which is conducted, organized and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activities that might occur purely within the borders of a single nation, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.


What level of evidence do we have to accept that it is cross-border support? That the finance is coming from outside. Take the example that The Flying Monkeys are purely internal to Hyrule (for example), but Hyrule produces evidence they are being funded by a group in my nation. However my nation has no evidence that the group in my nation are doing this, and believe they are fluffy bunnies. Do we have to act on Hyrule's information?


CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger the lives and well-being of people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all States.


Eh.


1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.


Eh.


2. SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.


How do these new international instruments square with The Universal Bill Of Rights (Esp Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8) and Stop Privacy Intrusion (given that, it can be argued, SPI applies only internally, and does not to prevent nation A spying on the citzens of nation B, even though this would tromp all over the spirit of the law, and further that if Nation A and Nation B make a pact, Nation A can spy on the citizens of Nation B, and hand over all the information to Nation A, making Nation As' hands clean even though it has completely and totally violated the spirit of the resolution)?


3. DECLARES that every nation has the duty to refrain from organising, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.


Eh.


4. MANDATES that member states shall:
A. Prevent, suppress and criminalise the financing of international terrorism and


Again - how much evidence is required for this.


B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit,


Again - how much evidence.


intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts;


And - this is more important - how much evidence is required for this. Keep in mind that in the first part of (B) they have actually done something, but this part is all supposition. So how much evidence are we required to accept to totally screw over one of our citizens? Freezing somone's fund can ruin them (and more so in the next section), and if someone was so inclined they could easily malign or accuse someone just to screw them over. Further more there is a lot of fear about terrorism that is mostly unfounded, and this section "intend to commit" could be used to stop almost anyone doing anything given enough effort, whether they are infact guilty or not.


of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons;


Firstly - how much control does someone have to have for it to be shut down? Suppose Mrs Smith owns a company called Genco Olive Oil Imports, and part owns it with Mrs Jones. But Mrs Jones (unbeknownst to Mrs Smith) also owns a company called Gemini Software Ltd, that is a front company for funnelling money to a terrorist group in another country. Mrs Jones is caught and arrested, but suddenly Genco is shut down and all the staff - who have NOTHING to do with the money/terrorist stuff are out of work, along with Mrs Smith who is totally innocent. That strikes me as unfair.

Secondly - how indirectly is "indirectly"? Mrs Jones (the evil terrorist woman from above) owns Company A, that owns Compny B, that owns Company C that owns Company D that is partnership with Company E. Is Company E liable since Mrs Jones sits as an honnoury member of the board of directors?


and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly,


Again - how much control and how indirtectly? If Mrs Jones is actually on the board of governers of a school, but the school is not a business, and is not involved in anyway in her actions, would it be under risk from this clause?

(And - by the by - you could make that paragraph more understandable, cause it took me a good long while to get what it meant, and quite honestly I am not sure I have actually got it)


by such persons or associated persons and entities


How far does "association" extend? Because if Clause 8 of The Universal Bill Of Rights extends protection from prosecution for crimes of family, would any associates who are family be excluded? Further more the idea of guilt by association is generally not considered a legal basis for decisisions (or at least not in Pallatium), so just because I am pretty good friend with someone who, it turns out is Mrs Jones (from above), am I an associate of hers? And if so am I, and all my funds, under threat?

Further more Clause 3 of The Bill Of Rights can be interpretted as the right to free assocation (if you try), which is also threatened by this to some degree.


5. DETERMINED that member states shall:
A. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;


This is where some civil liberties issues come in to their own, and again the level of evidence required to support these actions. Preventing people from joining groups, organisations and (possibly) religious groups is an afront to various resolutions (religious tolerance and the UBR most notably), so if we are told that The Church of The Fallen Angels is a terrorist group, yet we find no evidence of that, we can not lawfully stop recruitment, nor can we lawfully top people joining. Further more under the Religious Tolerance resolution, we are, strictly speaking, not permitted to discriminate against them by chosing not to offer support (I admit if it turns out that we do find evidence to support it, the other resolutions might not apply, but that is not my biggest concern)


B. Deny safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organise, support or practice international terrorism;


With "Refugee Protection Act" on the books, the question of evidence once again becomes important. We are not permitted to deny refuge to people who have a legitimate claim, and yet this would require we do.


C. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and


"Right To Refuse Extradition" would imply that my nation can deal with people convicted under this crime in my nation - that I don't have to hand them over to the nation where the terrorism is supposed to take place. Would that be correct?

Further more - I would argue that all of these crimes are not of the same degree, and as such you are asking us to elevate talking to the same level of crime as murder, which is entirely unacceptable. I know - freedom of expression does not extend to asking for the murder of someone else, but at the same time saying you are going to kill someone is not the same as actually killing someone, and the punishments for planning terrorism can not be as severe as actually carrying it out. I will give you the benifit of the doubt that "the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts" means that the punishments can vary depending on your part in the crime (so if you just plan something, but not carry it out, you will not be punished as if you had carried it out) and further more, the threat of the use of force should not carry the same punishment as the actual use of force, because again - words are just words and actions are what people should be punished for.

The alternative is that you set the precedent that governments can punish people for simply expressing themselves, which is a dangerous precedent to set.

Finally - does the person who is involved in something have to know they are involved in something? Mrs Smith could supply a payment to somebody and really have no idea what it is for - would they be as guilty as someone else?


D. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings related to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceedings.


Would all of these actions be conducted under the various resolutions? (Stop Privacy Intrusion, Due Process etc) Or does the fact it is international law, or the fact it is terrorism, mean that the resolutions that are applied at a national level no longer apply to international law?

And - in relation to the application of national law - if Nation B needs to conduct investigations in Nation A, and they have radically different laws about gathering evidence (and so forth), which Nation's law applies? Can agents of Nation B use their own methods and practices in Nation A, or do they have to stick to the law of Nation A? Or will agents not be permitted to enter other nations, and it will be the agents of Nation A that do the investigating on behalf of Nation B?


Also - say Hyrule can detain people for 50 days without charge, but Pallatium can only detain them for 10. Would that mean Pallatium would be permitted to hold them for 50 at Hyrules request, even though it is entirely illegal? Or even if Hyrule demands we hold them for 50, we are permitted to only hold them for 10 and we can not co-operate fully with Hyrule due to our laws?


The next part is "urges", so I can ignore it :}

But if I were going to pay attention then....


6. URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter,


Which means what? Changing our laws to meet another nation's so that we punish terrorists as hard as the other nation does?


and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists;


Does this cover just those who are terrorists, or those we suspect? Because those we suspect are, it can be argued, covered by the protection of various resoluations. And again - once we get to those "we know" and "we suspect" is based on what level of evidence?


forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups;


Is this what they are using, or actually intercepting these technologies? Because Stop Privacy Intrustion prevents the interception without suitable proof (which is not something you ask for)


and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.


Another civil liberties issue. "sensitive materials" could be practically anything - government secrets for example. So (again) we come back to evidence. If Hyrule committed genocide, and then the evidence was surpressed and buried, but a group found it out, would it not be in the interest of the Hyrule government to say "yeah - they are terrorists" so the group could never publish or transport it, and everyone would be actively trying to stop them.


What my issue comes down to is this :-

What level of evidence does a nation have to require for groups to fall under this proposal?

Given that it makes NO MENTION of previous resolutions, are we to assume all previous resolutions apply, and that all the actions listed in here must also fall under those resolutions (Stop Privacy Intrustion, Fair Trial, Due Process, Definition of Fair Trial, Refugee Protection and The Universal Bill Of Rights to name all the ones I named)?

Who's law takes precedence in an investigation in to international crimes?

Are all crimes under this to be treated as being as serious as all others?

And under the "taking away someone's money" clause - how much protection is there for innocents who are just caught up in the problem?

These are the civil liberty issues I was talking about - not people being arrested for no reason (although some nations could use this bill to do that), but the interactions between nations, and how much support an accusation needs before it requires action under this proposal.

The one thing that does cheer me up is that between Treatment of Prisoners Of War and Habeus Corpus, anyone arrested or detained under this proposal will still have their rights protected under UN law, which is nice.

Also - what exactly do you define as a civilian?

I am not in the military forces of Pallatium. Nor am I a police officer, or a member of the security services. In short, I am - to all intents and purposes a civilian.

And yet your proposal would suggest I am a viable target for international terrorism and that your proposal has no protection in it for me.

I get that some governments are military, but what about civilian governments? Are they and their people still at risk because they are "the government", or are they protected?

After several unfortunate delays, the people of Cluichstan are proud to announce that this proposal will be submitted today. Please keep an eye out for it in the list of proposals and support this important measure for international security.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

After several unfortunate delays, the people of Cluichstan are proud to announce that this proposal will be submitted today. Please keep an eye out for it in the list of proposals and support this important measure for international security.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

So you are just going to ignore all of my questions?

So you are just going to ignore all of my questions?

No. See? I answered this one.

I had to shorten the title so it would fit, but the proposal has been submitted. It is now called the International Anti-Terror Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terror). Thanks to my fine Hirotan friend for his help in developing the proposal, as well as to all of you who provided the constructive criticism that helped refine it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

I await responses to Queen Lily's questions with great interest.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

No. See? I answered this one.

Then I will just assume that everything I fear about this proposal - that it can be turned in to the totalitarian weapon of various dictators, that it can be used to totally screw over innocent people, that it will basically strip away most of the human rights people take for granted and will totally and utterly fuck over national sovereignty - are all true, and proceed to tell everyone on the UN forum that that is the case, and back it up with evidence.

Then I will just assume that everything I fear about this proposal - that it can be turned in to the totalitarian weapon of various dictators, that it can be used to totally screw over innocent people, that it will basically strip away most of the human rights people take for granted and will totally and utterly fuck over national sovereignty - are all true, and proceed to tell everyone on the UN forum that that is the case, and back it up with evidence.

Your "evidence" will be contradicted by the text of the proposal -- unless you plan on ranting about "freedom fighters" in Hyrule or some such nonsense again.

Your "evidence" will be contradicted by the text of the proposal -- unless you plan on ranting about "freedom fighters" in Hyrule or some such nonsense again.

I had gotten over that, as I indicated. And now I am on to a whole load of other stuff, that if you are not going to read you should at least admit has fuck all to do with freedom fighters and is actually proper questions about what "international co-operation" means in terms of two nations getting along.

But since you are so convinced of the rightness of your actions, you can pretty much ignore everyone else. I would hate to burden you with ..

You know what? even flaming you is not worth the effort it would take.