NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my second attempt to repeal this Resolution. There are times where it is important to put inter-national security as a priority but not a substitute over basic human rights. I respectfully request that this Resolution be repealed.

We have seen world wide the destruction of landmarks, terrorist attacks, thousands of murders. We have seen the worse of human kind act out against innocent civilians.

While our government should have the authority if there is reasonable doubt to listen to all personal communications, including, but not limited to: face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet.

It is originally propsed that if our governments feel there is " serious evidence of a planned or committed crime" then we should go forth with approval before the Judiciary.

How long can it take to go before the Judiciary? What is the chance that an activist Judge will try to reshape the law to fit their own personal agenda rather then interpert the law? What is the chance the government beaucracy will tie up our resources to prevent the planning or a committed crime?

Why should the millions that reside in our respected nations be at the fault line of politics? Why should millions of lives hang in the balance because national leaders want to make a political statement?

As leaders of our individual Nation States our first priority is to protect our fellow countrymen from all threats and harm, foreign and domestic. This is not to infringe upon basic human rights, but just to give the government the tool and oppurtunity if there is a reasonable doubt to monitor personal communictions.
In no way,shape or form will the governement be allowed to monitor personal communications for any sort of recreational use.


For the sake of world peace, national security and the growth and development of our individual nations, REPEAL United Nations Resolution #10 and give our respected governments the authority to monitor personal communications when there is a reasonable doubt of the planned or committed crime.


I leave every nation and regional delegate with one question that they must seriously ask themselves.


Would you rather be safe or sorry?

No.

We consider the abuse that can and will arise if governments are given free reign to intrude into their citizens private affairs will cause much greater harm to society than a case of "maybe" concerning terrorism.

Who are these terrorists? Where are they from? What do they want? Who are they targetting? I see many references to terrorists in proposals, but no-one seems to know anything about them except there seems to be one hiding behind every bush.

If any paticular nation is having trouble with a slow and/or corrupt judicial system, then its up to them to fix it themselves. We don't have any such problems in our nation.

The right to privacy is a basic human right.

Sorry, no support from us.

Would you rather be safe or sorry?

No.


(occ) I admit, I laughed :}

This is my second attempt to repeal this Resolution. There are times where it is important to put inter-national security as a priority but not a substitute over basic human rights. I respectfully request that this Resolution be repealed.


I would have thought that if people are fighting for freedom and human rights, removing them would be a bad way to start.


We have seen world wide the destruction of landmarks, terrorist attacks, thousands of murders. We have seen the worse of human kind act out against innocent civilians.


When? Where? Show me an NS example happening/happened in a Member Nation and I will consider your proposal.

Further more - my cabinet asked me to point out that some of these things happened in Pallatium a long while before we were a member nation, but most of the people were kind of happy about it.


While our government should have the authority if there is reasonable doubt to listen to all personal communications, including, but not limited to: face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet.


Who gets to define the word "reasonable"? I understand, if not accept, the idea that terrorism requires people to be spied on, but some governments might believe that them being overthrown is a good reason, or someone planning a rally against them is a good reason, or someone thinking of voting against them is a good reason....

Who defines "reasonable"?


It is originally propsed that if our governments feel there is " serious evidence of a planned or committed crime" then we should go forth with approval before the Judiciary.

How long can it take to go before the Judiciary? What is the chance that an activist Judge will try to reshape the law to fit their own personal agenda rather then interpert the law? What is the chance the government beaucracy will tie up our resources to prevent the planning or a committed crime?


Not to quote someone who really isn't a good model of civil rights, but beaucracy is the price we pay for impartiallity.

And by the way - stop quoting activist judges. Some judges in some nations use their position to ban abortion, enforce school prayer and do other things that most people would consider a bad, bad idea. So just because one judge wants to protect the right of people to live in private and not be at the mercy of their government, they are suddenly the bad guy?


Why should the millions that reside in our respected nations be at the fault line of politics? Why should millions of lives hang in the balance because national leaders want to make a political statement?


Because otherwise the millions that reside in our respected nations are at the mercy of their government.


As leaders of our individual Nation States our first priority is to protect our fellow countrymen from all threats and harm, foreign and domestic. This is not to infringe upon basic human rights, but just to give the government the tool and oppurtunity if there is a reasonable doubt to monitor personal communictions.
In no way,shape or form will the governement be allowed to monitor personal communications for any sort of recreational use.


I would say a government that feels the need to spy on it's own people at will, without recouse to anything like evidence or the judiciary, is way more of a threat to its people than someone with a bomb strapped to them. Cause the bomb will go off once, and kill people, but the laws the government enacts will last forever - affecting millions, if not billions, of people.


For the sake of world peace, national security and the growth and development of our individual nations, REPEAL United Nations Resolution #10 and give our respected governments the authority to monitor personal communications when there is a reasonable doubt of the planned or committed crime.


It will lead to a police state in every nation and I am not sure that will make the world a better and safer place.


I leave every nation and regional delegate with one question that they must seriously ask themselves.


Would you rather be safe or sorry?

Depends on how you define safety.

The right to privacy is a basic human right. Hirota agrees with this stance, but notes the right to security is also a human right.

The tricky part is balancing the right of the induvidual to privacy with the right of others to security. My government happens to believe this balance is about right at the moment with the present legislation into tapping into personal communications.Who are these terrorists? Where are they from? What do they want? Who are they targetting? I see many references to terrorists in proposals, but no-one seems to know anything about them except there seems to be one hiding behind every bush.I hope you are not talking about Cluichistan's and Hirota's joint proposal....I am not in the business of scaremongering and overstating the threat, but rather in the business of ensuring nations do not harbour terrorists against another.

Hirota agrees with this stance, but notes the right to security is also a human right.

The tricky part is balancing the right of the induvidual to privacy with the right of others to security. My government happens to believe this balance is about right at the moment with the present legislation into tapping into personal communications.I hope you are not talking about Cluichistan's and Hirota's joint proposal....I am not in the business of scaremongering and overstating the threat, but rather in the business of ensuring nations do not harbour terrorists against another.

No, actually I'm not referring to that proposal because it is trying to define terrorism and answer the questions I posed in my post. Terrorism is the whole reason for that proposal, its not just being used as a scare tactic to try to get people to support it :).

Its proposals like this repeal that use terrorism as an arguement without anything to back the assertion up that I object to.

No, actually I'm not referring to that proposal because it is trying to define terrorism and answer the questions I posed in my post. Terrorism is the whole reason for that proposal, its not just being used as a scare tactic to try to get people to support it :).

Its proposals like this repeal that use terrorism as an arguement without anything to back the assertion up that I object to.I didn't think so :)