NationStates Jolt Archive

The people of Cluichstan, after weeks of consultations with a number of esteemed delegates of this austere body, have revised our Anti-Terror Act and resubmitted it for consideration. We respectfully request your support.

(OOC: Click on the title of the proposal to be taken directly to it on the NS site.)

Anti-Terrorism Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terror)
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Cluichstani UN Mission

Description: The United Nations:

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 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, for the purpose of this resolution, 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 state, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger 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 state has the duty to refrain from organizing, 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 criminalize the financing of international terrorism
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
C. 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
D. Deny, to the best of their knowledge and ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or practice international terrorism
E. 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
F. 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.

5. 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.

Co-authored by Hirota.

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad:

With.

(Not that you'd be able to find us very easily if you did choose to try an invasion...)

Meh, why not. After all, it is the first time Cluichstan uses the word "respectfully."

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad:

What the Hell...sounds like fun. Deal me in.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I'll endorse this motion with one ammendment, if you change "non-state actors" to "any actors" , so it will include the state terrorism....

I'll endorse this motion with one ammendment, if you change "non-state actors" to "any actors" , so it will include the state terrorism....


First of all, it's already on the proposal list, so it can't be changed at this point. Also, "state terrorism" can simply be classified as an act of war.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

First of all, it's already on the proposal list, so it can't be changed at this point. Also, "state terrorism" can simply be classified as an act of war.

OCC: In my world view, if your nation sponcers terrorism(especially against my nation), then you are in a state of war against my nation. Thus allowing me to bring the hammer down on ya.:D

Sir Clives is currently being deputised by Angus MacLaren, as some evil terrorist has tied his shoelaces together.


I cannae see oot wrong wi' it

In times of war, state terrorism is sometimes necessary to achieve tactical objectives.

OCC: In my world view, if your nation sponcers terrorism(especially against my nation), then you are in a state of war against my nation. Thus allowing me to bring the hammer down on ya.:D

Actually, I don't think you need a reason to bring down the hammer. Otherwise, yeah.

In times of war, state terrorism is sometimes necessary to achieve tactical objectives.

We completely agree, which is why this proposal does not address acts of war.

OOC: And I'm going to kill you, Gruen. :p

Actually, I don't think you need a reason to bring down the hammer. Otherwise, yeah.

You are getting to know me too well.:D

OOC: Heh, yeah. I had a thought: you could add a 'this specifically does not apply to nice freedom-fighter people' clause.

Then my government will support your resolution.

OOC: Heh, yeah. I had a thought: you could add a 'this specifically does not apply to nice freedom-fighter people' clause.

OOC: And then a "defining nice freedom-fighter people as not being called osama."

Then my government will support your resolution.You've made a very wise decision, my friend.

Defense Spending (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=omigodtheykilledkenny&nation2=colonist+army&nation3=&nation4=&nation5=&nation6=):
OMGTKK: T$4,767,073,411,716.00 50%
Colonist Army: R$772,129,896,265.58 23%

OOC: And then a "defining nice freedom-fighter people as not being called osama."

OOC: "And as being fluffy and lovely and as not hurting a kitten, honest, except in the name of glorious freedom, unlike those beastly mean terrorist people nerr pfft to them."

Ahem.

IC: We support the proposal.

We would support this, but OMGTKK's threat has tempted us to oppose it, simply out of opposition to any coercion tactics being used in the U.N.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

How about if a give you a cookie?

i agree.

How about if a give you a cookie?

Hmmm, corruptilicious.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

this is probably the best one i have seen of these. we are still a bit hesitant about this and want replies for 2 questions before giving a definite position:
1) are politions deemed as civilians?
2) by international, are you meaning those acting outside the borders of their base nation/nation targeted?
the reason i ask these, is that freedom fighters could be safe, especially if you answer yes to #2

OOC:
I would support this and place my support for the proposal, but currently i am giving up my Deligacy to the Founder of the region i am in. I figured that it is time someone else held the title for the region instead of me, seeing as i have been Deligate for 228 days....

this is probably the best one i have seen of these. we are still a bit hesitant about this and want replies for 2 questions before giving a definite position:
1) are politions deemed as civilians?
2) by international, are you meaning those acting outside the borders of their base nation/nation targeted?
the reason i ask these, is that freedom fighters could be safe, especially if you answer yes to #2

In response to your questions:

1. That would depend upon the government in question. In a military dictatorship, for instance, the two would be one and the same.

2. By international, under this proposal, we mean those acting outside or receiving support from outside the targeted nation. (OOC: For instance, in RL, this would pretty much put an end to IRA fundraising in the US.) A popular uprising within a particular nation is outside the purview of this proposal.

If this doesn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, please feel free to ask follow-ups.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich

We would support this, but OMGTKK's threat has tempted us to oppose it, simply out of opposition to any coercion tactics being used in the U.N.Mr. Otterby:

Terrorism is no issue to play politics with. Combatting it is of the utmost importance to our citizens and to the assurance of their safety, and this proposal will serve as a key instrument in the ongoing fight against international terror. Paradise City is in a state of paralyzing disrepair; it is subject to repeated assaults by mobsters and suspected terrrorists, and is constantly under the threat of terrorist strikes. This will not stand. For the sake of free people everywhere, the United Nations must take action against these thugs, and it must do so now.

You must understand, as our people are in immediate danger of terrorist attack, we must view any nation opposed to fighting terror on an international scale as a potential threat to our own nation. As we already stated, in this fight, you're either with us or against us. Please don't be against us, especially when you don't even have a military! :p (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=compadria)

We are strongly in favor of this proposal, and will proudly campaign for it once it is resubmitted.

sadly this was a bad time for me to participate in a TG campaign - it does not look like it will pass this time, so I will wait till the inevitable resubmission.

Re-submit good sir and I shall support it again.:D

R.Lee says it best.

http://www.grose.us/pics/warcry.jpg

The Grand Imperium of Unending Virtue does not support this legislation. Assuming that all governments are perfect, then this legislation makes sense. But when a government is swarmed by corruption, instigates fury amongst the people at home and abroad, then it is a legitimate cause to die for to topple the regime. The mandate to rule is not deserved by such a government.

Some times the rebellion and insurgents work from a base in another country, for the obvious reason that the home country is far to dangerous. And some times foreign governments may choose to suppress insurgents or support them, financially or militarily, depending on their relation with the home country or their interests being concerned. The rebels may sometimes need to eliminate civilian targets that are opposing the effort to topple the home country regime, as an act of strategy.
Then there are the ones that we recognize as terrorists. Those without a higher cause, disrupts the society and way of life by instigating terror, hatred, fear to extract financial and economic advantages, for pleasure, or due to religious intolerance, wanting to eliminate those whom they think are infidels.

Therefore, your definition of terrorism is ideologically wrong, it cannot be supported, and must be struck down.

The Grand Imperium of Unending Virtue does not support this legislation. Assuming that all governments are perfect, then this legislation makes sense. But when a government is swarmed by corruption, instigates fury amongst the people at home and abroad, then it is a legitimate cause to die for to topple the regime. The mandate to rule is not deserved by such a government.

Some times the rebellion and insurgents work from a base in another country, for the obvious reason that the home country is far to dangerous. And some times foreign governments may choose to suppress insurgents or support them, financially or militarily, depending on their relation with the home country or their interests being concerned. The rebels may sometimes need to eliminate civilian targets that are opposing the effort to topple the home country regime, as an act of strategy.
Then there are the ones that we recognize as terrorists. Those without a higher cause, disrupts the society and way of life by instigating terror, hatred, fear to extract financial and economic advantages, for pleasure, or due to religious intolerance, wanting to eliminate those whom they think are infidels.

Therefore, your definition of terrorism is ideologically wrong, it cannot be supported, and must be struck down.

Wow... that is the longest way to say "freedom fighters" I ever saw. Fonzoland believes the ends do not justify the means. We accept the safeguards and exceptions in the current text as sufficient. We support the proposal.

Wow... that is the longest way to say "freedom fighters" I ever saw. Fonzoland believes the ends do not justify the means. We accept the safeguards and exceptions in the current text as sufficient. We support the proposal.

Then, what means will justify that end that is realistic? Rebellions have occured for centuries promoting a change in government and country every few hundred years. Who are we to deny the future rebels the right to do what is inevitable in the process of evolution. I did distinguish between what I call a terrorist and what is not a terrorist, did I not?

Then, what means will justify that end that is realistic? Rebellions have occured for centuries promoting a change in government and country every few hundred years.

I see we have a reading comprehension problem here. The means justifying the ends is just silly.

Other than that, this resolution does not ban revolutionary movements. It does not even ban the use of terrorism by revolutionary movements. What it does ban is foreign support of groups that use terrorist methods, however laudable their goals are.

Face it, if a group wants to overthrow the government, there are plenty of more effective targets than the civilian population. Terrorism contains in itself admission of defeat: when the general population cannot be persuaded to rally behind a cause, they are deemed to be part of the enemy, and attacked as such. Which is not nice.

Nations that oppose the principles described in this proposal are nations that are open to supporting terrorism across their borders. As such, they are a threat to the civilised world. Although we do not share the belligerant attitude of OMGTKK, we understand and accept it, as it clearly lies within the legitimate right to self-defense.

Fernanda put down the briefing file on the UN's latest anti-terror debate, a satisfied smile crossing his face. "They're finally getting it," he muttered to himself. "Alex, those worthless dumbasses in the United Nations are finally getting it!"

"I'm Alex's deputy, Mr. President. The secretary is in the john."

"Whatever. What I'm sayin' is we came to office promising to pull out of that no-good piss-fest, and now the shit we've been pushing for all this time is finally happening!"

Tehrani had entered the president's office as he spoke; Fernanda turned to him as though he'd been talking to him the whole time. "Ain't that good news Alex?"

"It's very promising, Mr. President," Tehrani replied. "In spite of that fossil fuels foolishness, the dolphins act and the chemical-weapons ban have bitten the dust, several free-trade accords have been approved, the Worldwide Media Act and the Transgender Equality Act were defeated, truly international legislation such as Diplomatic Immunity and the neutrality treaty has passed and more is being considered, and the membership seems to want to repeal every dead-weight resolution it can get its hands on! Right to Divorce? Save the forests? Mandatory Recycling? All repealed. Law of the Sea? It'll soon join them. Even Jack's repeal of Gay Rights has been put in queue! And no one thought a repeal of Gay Rights was possible! No one!"

"And this anti-terror stuff ..."

"Long overdue, Mr. President. With any luck, it'll pass muster with the General Assembly ..."

"And be immediately repealed!" Fernanda offered eagerly.

"... Erm, Mr. President ... repealing Anti-Terror would be ..."

"Oh, oh, right. Not good. Got it. But at least they might forgive us for all of our unprovoked military assaults on third-world nations ..."

"Let's not go nuts."

A pause.

The Destructor lowered his voice. "So what do we do about these ... Unending Virtue people?" he asked gravely.

"It's a long-shot, Mr. President, but if we can successfully introduce that hippy brew made with real peyote -- what's it called? ... Psychedelica? -- into the U.V. beverage market, get all the locals hooked on it, an invasion of their terror-loving commune would be all too easy."

"Yeah, hopefully they won't build up tolerance for that shit," Fernanda added.

Fernanda put down the briefing file on the UN's latest anti-terror debate, a satisfied smile crossing his face. "They're finally getting it," he muttered to himself. "Alex, those worthless dumbasses in the United Nations are finally getting it!"

"I'm Alex's deputy, Mr. President. The secretary is in the john."

"Whatever. What I'm sayin' is we came to office promising to pull out of that no-good piss-fest, and now the shit we've been pushing for all this time is finally happening!"

Tehrani had entered the president's office as he spoke; Fernanda turned to him as though he'd been talking to him the whole time. "Ain't that good news Alex?"

"It's very promising, Mr. President," Tehrani replied. "In spite of that fossil fuels foolishness, the dolphins act and the chemical-weapons ban have bitten the dust, several free-trade accords have been approved, the Worldwide Media Act and the Transgender Equality Act were defeated, truly international legislation such as Diplomatic Immunity and the neutrality treaty has passed and more is being considered, and the membership seems to want to repeal every dead-weight resolution it can get its hands on! Right to Divorce? Save the forests? Mandatory Recycling? All repealed. Law of the Sea? It'll soon join them. Even Jack's repeal of Gay Rights has been put in queue! And no one thought a repeal of Gay Rights was possible! No one!"

"And this anti-terror stuff ..."

"Long overdue, Mr. President. With any luck, it'll pass muster with the General Assembly ..."

"And be immediately repealed!" Fernanda offered eagerly.

"... Erm, Mr. President ... repealing Anti-Terror would be ..."

"Oh, oh, right. Not good. Got it. But at least they might forgive us for all of our unprovoked invasions of third-world nations ..."

"Let's not go nuts."

A pause.

The Destructor lowered his voice. "So what do we do about these ... Unending Virtue people?" he asked gravely.

"It's a long-shot, Mr. President, but if we can successfully introduce that hippy brew made with real peyote -- what's it called? ... Psychedelica? -- into the U.V. beverage market, get all the locals hooked on it, an invasion of their terror-loving commune would be all too easy."

"Yeah, hopefully they won't build up tolerance for that shit," Fernanda added.

A simple look at your UN country profiles tells me that your so called president has no clue how to run a country, with all your people living in fear. You should just bow to our Emperor and surrender your rule, perhaps your people will be made more happy.

A simple look at your UN country profiles tells me that your so called president has no clue how to run a country, with all your people living in fear. You should just bow to our Emperor and surrender your rule, perhaps your people will be made more happy.Bah. Our military's three times (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=unending_virtue&nation2=omigodtheykilledkenny&nation3=&nation4=&nation5=&nation6=) the size of yours. You best start employing some glass artisans now; they'll have plenty of raw material to work with once we've finished with you. ... How the fuck did you get past the Secret Service, anyway? Get out of my office!

In response to your questions:

1. That would depend upon the government in question. In a military dictatorship, for instance, the two would be one and the same.

2. By international, under this proposal, we mean those acting outside or receiving support from outside the targeted nation. (OOC: For instance, in RL, this would pretty much put an end to IRA fundraising in the US.) A popular uprising within a particular nation is outside the purview of this proposal.

If this doesn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, please feel free to ask follow-ups.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
upon this clarification, we support this.
another question is raised though: what if the group seeks sympathy from outside nations, which then impose embargos. would this then make it international?

Edina Sans supports this.

upon this clarification, we support this.
another question is raised though: what if the group seeks sympathy from outside nations, which then impose embargos. would this then make it international?

In this example, an embargo could be enacted without actually stating the real reason for it. It's a loophole. Use it. ;)

In this example, an embargo could be enacted without actually stating the real reason for it. It's a loophole. Use it. ;)

It is NOT a loophole. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe for a minute that you intended to legislate on embargoes, spying, tanks maneuvers, fart attacks, or any other form of hostilities between countries. This is a proposal about terrorism, and terrorism alone. I urge the honorable delegates not to spin off into uncontrollable tangents.

No, we didn't intend to legislate in those areas.

Resubmitted. The link I already posted in this thread should still work.

Post-Great Crash bump. A little more than 24 hours left for people to approve this, so please do so asap! :D

[QUOTE=Cluichstan]FURTHER DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, 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 state, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war. QUOTE]

alright.. haven't had much time to properly eviscerate this proposal. So, I’ll just point out the first statement I spotted that is enough for me, The GDGPB HS, to reach for my REJECTED rubber stamp:


…such activities that might occur during times of war…



what activities? Those perpetrated by soldiers on other soldiers, or on civilians? or those perpetrated by civilians on soldiers, or on other civilians?

AND, more importantly; who defines TIMES OF WAR.

Supposing the GrandPooBah … Shrub, of country U decides to invade country X, for whatever reasons –legitimate or otherwise…

After a few days of the requisite slaughter on both sides, His Holiness Bubba Shrub decides to declare “an end to hostilities”.. he unilaterally declares a victory, while the other side still thinks they haven’t been properly licked yet.

Now, any action taken by country X’s soldiers, or civilians, that might have been seen as legitimate resistance During a war, is now declared illegal, and any ally of country X labeled a terror-sponsor.

On the other hand. If before the war is over, loads of civilians come in from country Z to.. get their hands dirty, and do their bit for whatever demagogue they follow. Then they start blowing EVERYONE up, including X and U civilians.. according to the proposal, this last scenario is perfectly acceptable.. they might be war criminals, but certainly not terrorists.


I’m sure someone’s gonna try and come up with a clearer definition of what constitutes terrorism. But, you don’t see me sticking my hand up, and around the Grand Duchy, I am longest nose champion 10 years in a row…

alright.. haven't had much time to properly eviscerate this proposal.

*snip*

And you still haven't done it properly. You fail at evisceration, and you fail at using quote boxes.

Only needs 10 more approvals. So...cloooooooose...

C'mon, people! Only a few more approvals to go!

[QUOTE=Comparinilandia]I'll endorse this motion with one ammendment, if you change "non-state actors" to "any actors" , so it will include the state terrorism....[/QUOTE


To define terrorism so that states cannot commit it is absurd.:headbang: I wouldnt have thought this was a difficult concept to grasp.

To define terrorism so that states cannot commit it is absurd.:headbang: I wouldnt have thought this was a difficult concept to grasp.

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

3. DECLARES that every state has the duty to refrain from organizing, 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 criminalize the financing of international terrorism
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
C. 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
D. Deny, to the best of their knowledge and ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or practice international terrorism
E. 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 ...State sponsorship of terrorism is covered amply in this document. It is roundly condemned, and expressly forbidden. Not only that, member states are mandated to criminalize such activities and prosecute their practitioners the fullest extent of the law.

Quorum!!!

Quorum!!!

Huzzah! Congratulations! :)

Thanks. Third time really is a charm, it seems. :)

Congrats!:D The Iron City and Primanti Bros Sammiches are on me.:D

Well done. Time to kick some freedom fighter ass.

Thanks. Third time really is a charm, it seems. :)See? You can do serious proposals! Just leave the silly ones to the forums ;)

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad:
Invade me then. I don't care what anyone says. I'm going to be opposed to this with a ten foot concrete wall reinforced with steel, topped with barbed wire, stood in front of the most exploive mine field ever.
I don't know what you're doing supporting this, or even re-proposing this.

Can you invade before tea please? My mum'll be angry otherwise.

Invade me then. I don't care what anyone says. I'm going to be opposed to this with a ten foot concrete wall reinforced with steel, topped with barbed wire, stood in front of the most exploive mine field ever.
I don't know what you're doing supporting this, or even re-proposing this.

Can you invade before tea please? My mum'll be angry otherwise.

*writing down Optisher's name, and hands it to a buxom secretary* "Jillian, sent this to the Emperor, so he can add this nation to the list of supporters of terrorists. Well need to know who to blame when we get attacked by terrorists.", Jillian stood up and said "Yes Ambassador!", as she gracefull left the halls, her hips swaying like a dozen cats in a burlap sack. Sulla sighed and said,"I love a Yes woman!"

I don't support terrorists or terrorism. I abhor it.

I don't support terrorists or terrorism. I abhor it.Then why oppose this act? I mean, you have consented to us invading you based on your opposition to this article (and it ought to be a cinch (nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=optischer&nation2=omigodtheykilledkenny&nation3=&nation4=&nation5=&nation6=), by the way), but would you mind telling us why? I mean, our defense secretary is about as insane and warmongering as you can get, but even he would like a good reason for realigning our forces before he orders it.

[Struggling to make sence of the Optischer envoy's disjointed "reasoning":]

Very well, then, enjoy your new status as a Kennyite viceroyalty.

Invade me then. I don't care what anyone says. I'm going to be opposed to this with a ten foot concrete wall reinforced with steel, topped with barbed wire, stood in front of the most exploive mine field ever.

How can you be in the UN and using mines?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

How can you be in the UN and using mines?
You can still use landmines. You're only 'called on' not to by the ban.

You can still use landmines. You're only 'called on' not to by the ban.
You'll have to excuse my PA, he's still learning all intricises of UN resolutions, he still thinks that the title actually matters.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

See? You can do serious proposals! Just leave the silly ones to the forums ;)

Smartass :p

It's in the queue, so it warrants a...

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

Getting close to the floor, sooooo...

Bump! :D

OOC: Bumping this again, since it's about to hit the floor. Let's have at it, folks! :cool:

Go for it mate!

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

What about the freedom fighters?

You gonna make a new thread for the official topic, or just use this one?

You gonna make a new thread for the official topic, or just use this one?

I'd just as soon keep this one, if that's okay. If you could change the thread title to something more "official," that'd be great, Hack.

Thanks much.

I bring questions, as I seem to do with everything. :)

Can you get a bit more detailed on "new international instruments?"

As previsouly stated, the Federal Republic wholeheartedly supports this repeal -- erm, proposal. Ever since the repeal of "Fight the Axis of Evil," (which wasn't even a real resolution, but anyway ...) we've been wondering what shape its replacement would take. Thankfully, we've been blessed with a strong resolution that compels nations to refrain from supporting terror and to work cooperatively to defeat it. And as this seems to be the de facto replacement for "Resolution" #1, we are willing to make an exception for our famous aversion for repeal/replace, as this is one "replacement" we surely like. :p

So maniacal is our devotion to this legislation, we are fully prepared to use all means necessary to get it passed, and that includes breaking ethics rules and shamelessly bribing fellow delegates to support it. In that vein, we are announcing the extra-special Grand Opening of Kenny's One-Stop Sex Shop!, a gentlemen's club where all your fantasies come true, for the low, low price of $18.95 for admission and a two-drink minimum. Usage of the *ahem* private rooms upstairs will of course be a fair amount extra. But you're in luck! All those who cast their votes in favor get a VIP discount. Just bring your voting card and slide it through the scanner to verify your "yes" vote on ATA, and you get in at half-price, with free drinks and a special visit upstairs as a bonus!!

Don't miss out on this spectacular offer! Vote yes today!

P.S. And yes, some of our highly talented, exceptionally endowed Exotic Commandos have agreed to take assignments at Kenny's Shop; and for those of you who are into the kinky stuff, their field of expertise is combat, so no worries. We won't judge you. ;)

I support this act because of my new special operations squads. They have new weaponry and I want to make sure it works properly. Unfortunately, my last boarding operation against pirates halted abruptly. I am willing to support the formation of an UN antiterror force. Specifically, I would be glad to provide soldiers for this cause.

We have had problems with waterborn piracy from other nations attempting to hijack ships for ransom. If you would classify certain types of piracy as terrorism we would be more glad to support this. We need practice to help deal with this problem. :mp5:

The people of Aroden are against this proposal, as we reject governmental development of arms or "special instruments". Terrorism does not exist within Aroden, as we are free and open-minded, with parliamentary representation for all groups. We do not invade other nations, which as research shows, is the primary motivation for terrorism. We could, however, be persuaded to change our mind, if the right incentive were to crop up.

Regards,
Aroden Ambassador.

The people of Aroden are against this proposal, as we reject governmental development of arms or "special instruments".What does that mean?

Terrorism does not exist within Aroden, as we are free and open-minded, with parliamentary representation for all groups.[OOC: You're Godmoding. No nation is totally free of all-too-common societal ills. And democracy is not some magic wand that solves all of society's problems.]

We do not invade other nations, which as research shows, is the primary motivation for terrorism.Our research shows that a perception of weakness in world powers leads to terrorism. Why would terrorists want to hit nations they know would only hit them back? And hard? Hit a nation then get pulverized by it and be slaughtered by the hundreds? What kind of terror recruitment tool is that?

On the contrary, behaving as a paper tiger is a remarkable impetus to terrorist assault. By hitting only nations that would respond only with indictments or "proportional response" strikes, you'll get your radical message out, secure in the knowledge you won't be punished in any severe fashion. It's a win-win.

We could, however, be persuaded to change our mind, if the right incentive were to crop up.The right incentive has already been offered up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10361527#post10361527) by this delegation.

The Republic of Grand Maritoll respectfully petitions for the attention of the general assembly of UN delegates and members with regards to this resolution, with particular attention paid to the set definition of terrorism and the lack of a set definition of violence. Upon close inspection, the Aides of the President Perpetua of Grand Maritoll have found the proposed resolution to be alarmingly malliable.

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 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.

The resolution must set a definition for violence. One of the definitions of violence is "Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor." In other words, even a peaceful protest could be considered violent if the protesters have strong feelings about the issue (which protesters usually do). Without a set definition for "violence", this resolution could be used to ban peaceful protests, or even the threatened use of peaceful protest.

With this serious possible implication having been found in the present form of this resolution, the President Perpetua of Grand Maritoll strongly recommends the immediate dissolution and re-wording of said resolution.

That would the right to freedom of expression. Much as we'd like to use this to crack down on 'peaceful protest', it would not be legal.

A thought: these might be pertinent.

Legal protection
Fair Trial (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=20)
Due Process (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=26)
End Barbaric Punishments (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=40)
Definition of 'Fair Trial' (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=46)
Habeas Corpus (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=72)

Civil liberties
Scientific Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=1)
End Slavery (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5)
Sexual Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6)
Stop Privacy Intrusion (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=9)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25)
Universal Freedom of Choice (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=52)
Freedom of Press (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=62)
Right to Self-Protection (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=93)
Freedom of Conscience (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=114)

Other relevant law
Wolfish Convention on POW (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=30)
Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48)
Children in War (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=50)
Reduce Black Market Arms Sales (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=56)
Refugee Protection Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=64)
The Nuclear Terrorism Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=74)
Humanitarian Intervention (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=91)
United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)
Diplomatic Immunity (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=126)

The people of Aroden are against this proposal, as we reject governmental development of arms or "special instruments". Terrorism does not exist within Aroden, as we are free and open-minded, with parliamentary representation for all groups. We do not invade other nations, which as research shows, is the primary motivation for terrorism. We could, however, be persuaded to change our mind, if the right incentive were to crop up.

Regards,
Aroden Ambassador.

Uh...'k...first, you reject the governmental development of arms? Interesting...the urge to colonise you is overwhelming.

Terrorism doesn't exist in Aroden? It might. When it does crop up, would you like the people of Cluichstan to sponsor it?

As for a reason to change your mind, well, there are Kenny's stripper commandos...

A thought: these might be pertinent.

Legal protection
Fair Trial (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=20)
Due Process (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=26)
End Barbaric Punishments (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=40)
Definition of 'Fair Trial' (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=46)
Habeas Corpus (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=72)

Civil liberties
Scientific Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=1)
End Slavery (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5)
Sexual Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6)
Stop Privacy Intrusion (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=9)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25)
Universal Freedom of Choice (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=52)
Freedom of Press (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=62)
Right to Self-Protection (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=93)
Freedom of Conscience (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=114)

Other relevant law
Wolfish Convention on POW (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=30)
Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48)
Children in War (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=50)
Reduce Black Market Arms Sales (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=56)
Refugee Protection Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=64)
The Nuclear Terrorism Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=74)
Humanitarian Intervention (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=91)
United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109)
Diplomatic Immunity (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=126)

Holy freakin' Gruenberg! :D

We vote NO with strong emphasis, and urge all UN Members to do the same.

For this, we propound the following two major reasons:

1: Already in the first clause, in defining international terrorism and what constitutes it, the resolution fails to include state terrorism.

Since this introductory definition of terrorism sets the tone, and indeed even dictates the entire meaning and purpose, of the resolution, this means that national governments so inclined, are effectively granted a carte blanche to engage in the activities described in the introduction without fear of repercussions.

Since the first clause directly and explicitly limits the definition of international terrorism to encompass only actions by NON-STATE actors, there is no barring state actors from resorting to (as quoted from the resolution): "the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals 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".

Simply adding "non-state actors, state actors or proxies thereof using methods aimed at... etc." would have been sufficient to render this "Anti-Terrorism Act" adequate for most effects and purposes, but in its current form it is not adequate.

Any UN resolution aimed at legislating about the immensely complex and controversial issue of terrorism, and attempting at one of the most politically sensitive and difficult issues of all - that of defining "terrorism" - MUST address and equally condemn ALL forms of terrorism, and this includes state terrorism. Without a fully agreeable and comprehensive definition of what constitutes "terrorism", the entire resolution becomes partisan and essentially meaningless.

2: Article 4 B creates an appalling legal grey-zone, since it MANDATES the freezing of funds and financial assets of persons who (again as quoted from the resolution): "INTEND to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts".

(This entire clause is by the way a direct copy/paste from the RL UN Security Council Resolution 1373, with 1 small but extremely important revision: The word "ATTEMPT" has been replaced with the word "INTEND")

So we point out here how it says "intend to commit" instead of "attempt to commit", which makes a world of difference and changes the entire meaning of the clause. By using "intend" rather than "attempt", this article not only allows, but in fact even DEMANDS, that national governments restrict essential civil rights, at the mere SUSPICION and claim that a person is INTENDING to commit acts of terrorism.

Since the resolution establishes NO provision for, or even mentions, any need for EVIDENCE of such intentions, this makes it nothing short of a draconian breach of civil rights. Article 4 B leaves the door wide open for arbitrary exercise of authority by governments against the liberty and property of individuals, without ANY need for proof that persons intend to engage in unlawful activities.

Furthermore, since article 4 B, on the grounds explained above, allows governments to declare people SUSPECTED of INTENDING to commit acts of terrorism, guilty of a criminal offence, we find that this resolution is in fact in DIRECT VIOLATION of NS UN resolution #27, "Due Process", which states that:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Here, we particularly stress "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Article 4 B in effect allows the deprivation of property and liberty, without the need for due process and based only on claimed intent without proof.

We further find article 4 B to also be in direct violation of article #4 of NS UN resolution #26, "The Universal Bill of Rights", which states:

"All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation."

Lastly, since the "Anti-Terrorism Act" allows, and even mandates, for government action against persons based only on suspicion of intent without any need for evidence or due process, it is to an extent also in violation of article #7 of "The Universal Bill of Rights", which states:

"Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Had this largely copied/pasted resolution:

a) Been worded differently (i.e. maintained the original meaning of the RL UN Security Council Resolution 1373).

b) Copied/pasted the following request of nations, from the RL UN Security Council Resolution 1269, as well: "Prevent and suppress in their territories THROUGH ALL LAWFUL MEANS the preparation and financing of any acts of terrorism".

Then this resolution would have been more appropriate and might have gained our support.

As it stands however, we are firmly and thoroughly AGAINST this resolution, and refuse to accept or recognize it in any way under any circumstances.

/The Frestonian UN Delegation

OOC: I'll leave Hirota/Cluichstan to address your claims. However: the legal argument is a stupid one, as you've clearly already thought it up. So why didn't you report it? The mods can't delete it now.

Legality question? Let's have a look-see...

2: Article 4 B creates an appalling legal grey-zone, since it MANDATES the freezing of funds and financial assets of persons who (again as quoted from the resolution): "INTEND to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts".So far, perfectly legal.

Here, we particularly stress "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Article 4 B in effect allows the deprivation of property and liberty, without the need for due process and based only on claimed intent without proof.Freezing an assest is not seizing it. This Proposal does not cause a violation here; nations simply need to follow the proper steps:

Suspect identified -> Assets frozen -> Due process stuff -> assests either unfrozen or seized, depending on trial results.

"All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation."You're using a ridiculously broad interpretation here. The trail you're following leads to the outlawing of prisons as prisoners aren't being "treated equally".

"Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty".Again, not illegal. Just as an arrest happens before the trial, the freezing of assests happens before the trial. Much like what happens in the real world with people suspected of dealing drugs.

refuse to accept or recognize it in any way under any circumstances.Yeah... you don't necessarily have that luxury.

I'm wholly against this. If someone were unable to change their government through democratic means, they would have no choice but to resort to terrorism.

I would say it is everyone's unalienable right to fight for freedom from oppression, whatever its source.

The Democratic Republic of Gryphonwing has voted Against, for these three reasons.

1) The definition of terrorism therein would potentially hinder legitimate freedom fighters.
2) This resolution's broadness gives the potential for states to abuse this in order to wage war on other states in the name of 'fighting terrorism' when truly other motives are behind their actions.
3) Also, this resolution's broadness could allow states to justify acts of refusal of human and civil rights under the banner of 'suspected terrorism'.

Gryphonwing is not against anti-terrorism mandate and would be eager to see a resolution that attacked true, immoral acts of terrorism without potentially allowing states to deny civil rights.

Please note that these are only the problems Gryphonwing surmised quickly at first glance. Further digging may very well uncover further problems with this resolution, as other Nations have already done, though we have not gone through it all and cannot comment on them as such.

Gryphonwing wholeheartedly reccomends a vote of AGAINST to all other Nationstates belonging to the United Nations.

The Republic of Roseannadu rejects this resolution on account of its vagueness and lack of checks-and-balances on the police powers it attributes to the state governments. Although the goals of the resolution are noble; currently the means do not justify the ends.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Thornleigh has voted 'Yes' to this proposal on the grounds that any nation-state should have the right to reply, with any degree of force they deem necessary, to any nation which hosts or hides terrorism.

No country from which terror grows and operates against Thornleigh will be spared the fullest punishment for their crimes against the Queen.

Blessed are the peacekeepers.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Lomandareon has voted YES on this Anti-Terrorism Act Proposal.

We are only a young nation but we sense the importance of the abolishment of Terrorism of any kind and we stand against any nations which support it.

'Unity is Strength'

you have consented to us invading you based on your opposition to this article

We've voted against, and at this very early stage there are over 200 who have voted against as well, and eventually there'll be several thousand. If you'd like to take us all on I think we'll be free next week? You'd have to arrange something with all of the others as well, can't have a good war if most of them have no idea there's one happening. We've got something in our constitution like Japan has which says we can't declare war, but we'll make some calls to some friends with big armies and split the TV contract 50-50. If this sounds good to you, give the Foreign Ministry a call and we can start making paradrops of free beer into your borders so as to undermine the anti-us sentiments and move some orbital lasers into position by next Friday.

In times of war, state terrorism is sometimes necessary to achieve tactical objectives.

Same could be said by non-state actors. The distinction makes this whole act oppressive; legalizing state violence

Same could be said by non-state actors. The distinction makes this whole act oppressive; legalizing state violence

Okay, I'm going to work backwards on the arguments against this proposal that have been posted while I was in my office drinking (OOC: while I was asleep).

This proposal does not legalise state violence. It doesn't speak to it. Not addressing something means it doesn't do anything in that regard. It neither legalises nor illegalises.

In short, ridiculous argument.

We've voted against, and at this very early stage there are over 200 who have voted against as well, and eventually there'll be several thousand. If you'd like to take us all on I think we'll be free next week? You'd have to arrange something with all of the others as well, can't have a good war if most of them have no idea there's one happening. We've got something in our constitution like Japan has which says we can't declare war, but we'll make some calls to some friends with big armies and split the TV contract 50-50. If this sounds good to you, give the Foreign Ministry a call and we can start making paradrops of free beer into your borders so as to undermine the anti-us sentiments and move some orbital lasers into position by next Friday.

Aaaaaaaaaanyway...

Next!

The Republic of Roseannadu rejects this resolution on account of its vagueness and lack of checks-and-balances on the police powers it attributes to the state governments. Although the goals of the resolution are noble; currently the means do not justify the ends.

Vagueness? This is one of the most specific proposals (at least, one that isn't a repeal) to hit the floor in weeks.

And it grants no special "police powers" to governments that they do not already possess.

The Democratic Republic of Gryphonwing has voted Against, for these three reasons.

1) The definition of terrorism therein would potentially hinder legitimate freedom fighters.

Let's get this straight once and for all now. This "freedom fighter" argument is a load of manure. The proposal doesn't do anything to "freedom fighters." All it does is prevent nations from supporting insurrections and terrorist activity in other nations.

2) This resolution's broadness gives the potential for states to abuse this in order to wage war on other states in the name of 'fighting terrorism' when truly other motives are behind their actions.

Again, broadness? It's very specific. And waging war on other states? It does exactly the opposite. Read the proposal again.

3) Also, this resolution's broadness could allow states to justify acts of refusal of human and civil rights under the banner of 'suspected terrorism'.

What human rights does it allow states to refuse? Oh, yeah...none.

Gryphonwing is not against anti-terrorism mandate and would be eager to see a resolution that attacked true, immoral acts of terrorism without potentially allowing states to deny civil rights.

Again, what civil rights would this proposal trod upon? None.

Please note that these are only the problems Gryphonwing surmised quickly at first glance. Further digging may very well uncover further problems with this resolution, as other Nations have already done, though we have not gone through it all and cannot comment on them as such.

Oh, I see. Here we have it. You admit you haven't read the proposal carefully. So much for serious consideration and informed arguments. You've got neither.

Gryphonwing wholeheartedly reccomends a vote of AGAINST to all other Nationstates belonging to the United Nations.

Next time, please read proposals before coming to a conclusion, and please do not urge other members to follow your ignorance.

OOC: Cripes...I feel like Forgottenlord now. :p

I'm wholly against this. If someone were unable to change their government through democratic means, they would have no choice but to resort to terrorism.

I would say it is everyone's unalienable right to fight for freedom from oppression, whatever its source.

How many times will I have to counter this objection? This proposal does NOTHING to prevent people from rising up against their government. It merely says that outside nations may not interfere by providing support.

I'm growing weary of all the negative feedback to people voting no, as a side note: things can be brought up with respect, and thus far, they absolutely have not been.

On my note, I can live without the state terrorism bit, as this is an international terrorism resolution: it's not stopping anyone from creating a state terrorism resolution, and maybe later, someone can ammend this to include state terrorism. I will have no problem accepting this resolution as is if I can get a definition of what exactly the "special instruments" called to be developed actually are.

I will have no problem accepting this resolution as is if I can get a definition of what exactly the "special instruments" called to be developed actually are.

That was left purposely vague so that individual nations can work them out for themselves and with each other.

*snip*

(OOC: I had a very long, detailed rebuttal to this, but when I went to submit it, Jolt had timed me out, and I lost it. I'm not going to retype it all, but I will provide a summary:

1. You're wrong.

2. As Hack already explained, it is perfectly legal. Thanks, Hack!

3. You're arrogant and obnoxious. I hope that your refusal to accept or recognise this proposal means we won't be hearing anymore from you. Oh, and good luck refusing to accept or recognise it once it passes.)

Hmm... what scares me now about "special instruments" is that any countries leaning more so towards nuclear weaponry and biological weaponry, which Saorse has a stance against, may now find an excuse to create these weapons unpunished. Would this be allowed under this resolution? I'm trying to get the whole picture here.

We must support the idea:sniper:

I cant believe some people are condoning terrorism by voting against this resolution. Its just plain wrong.

:headbang:

We vote against on the grounds that this resolution would ban the sacred right for the proletariat, and others to revolt with violent means. In a nation formed by violence, one cannot strike down the possibility of future violence.

Thus, we cannot, in good conscience strike down loyal patriots who are expressing their freedom to defend their honour by any means necessary.

I am afraid that my new, and tiny nation of Chrinthanium must oppose this legislation.

The legislation is completely and totally ineffective. Freezing assets, deny safe-haven I mean.. that is basically saying "You've been a bad boy... you blew up 10,000 people, so go to your room, dont come out and you can't watch tv while you're there"

Also, I must state most strongly that any nation who harbors terrorists that attacks this tiny nation, they shall de dealt with by force. And, I must add, Chrinthanium will not support any legislation against terrorism unless there is adequate provision for military action against the aggressing nation and/or group.

There is also no provision for the building, and use of weapons of mass destruction.. If the UN is trying to clean house and stop having tons of little resolutions hanging around that could all be combined, then this isn't the way to start. BEsides, do we not already have a Terrorism resolution?

We vote against on the grounds that this resolution would ban the sacred right for the proletariat, and others to revolt with violent means. In a nation formed by violence, one cannot strike down the possibility of future violence.

Thus, we cannot, in good conscience strike down loyal patriots who are expressing their freedom to defend their honour by any means necessary.Really? Do your militant bretheren stick to revolting in their own borders? Because that kind of activity is perfectly allowed. You're even allowed to fund such activities. But if they should coordinate with militants and "freedom fighters" in other nations, your nation would be forbidden from supporting them.

The legislation is completely and totally ineffective. Freezing assets, deny safe-haven I mean.. that is basically saying "You've been a bad boy... you blew up 10,000 people, so go to your room, dont come out and you can't watch tv while you're there"

Also, I must state most strongly that any nation who harbors terrorists that attacks this tiny nation, they shall de dealt with by force. And, I must add, Chrinthanium will not support any legislation against terrorism unless there is adequate provision for military action against the aggressing nation and/or group.What would you have us do? Mandate military action against terrorists?! This is a perfectly sensible proposal against terror. It disallows member states from sponsoring such activities, compels them to prosecute such acts to the fullest extent of the law, and urges international cooperation in the fight against terror. Barring that, I don't think the United Nations can require the military option.

There is also no provision for the building, and use of weapons of mass destruction.Well, such provisions would violate UNSA and Nuclear Armaments. And fret ye not, Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is on its way ...

If the UN is trying to clean house and stop having tons of little resolutions hanging around that could all be combined, then this isn't the way to start. BEsides, do we not already have a Terrorism resolution?No, we don't, so your arguments against legislative clutter are unfounded. Unless you would have us vote in no new resolutions. Yeah, that would really save space.

Really? Do your militant bretheren stick to revolting in their own borders? Because that kind of activity is perfectly allowed. You're even allowed to fund such activities. But if they should coordinate with militants and "freedom fighters" in other nations, your nation would be forbidden from supporting them.
Our nation would support our 'militant brethren' if they were spreading our message of control and oppression globally. Our army can only spread the message so far.

1: Already in the first clause, in defining international terrorism and what constitutes it, the resolution fails to include state terrorism.

Since this introductory definition of terrorism sets the tone, and indeed even dictates the entire meaning and purpose, of the resolution, this means that national governments so inclined, are effectively granted a carte blanche to engage in the activities described in the introduction without fear of repercussions.

Since the first clause directly and explicitly limits the definition of international terrorism to encompass only actions by NON-STATE actors, there is no barring state actors from resorting to (as quoted from the resolution): "the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals 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".Oh, dear. Can you read, Einstein?:

3. DECLARES that every state has the duty to refrain from organizing, 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 criminalize the financing of international terrorism
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
C. 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
D. Deny, to the best of their knowledge and ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or practice international terrorism
E. 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
F. 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.Now, tell me, which among the preceding provisions allows for "state terrorism" in any way, shape or form?

The effectiveness of laws is not measured by what they define but by what they actually do. You dither over the definition of terrorism in this proposal because it does not include "state terrorism," but the actual force of the resolution would not allow any such activities, so your concerns are irrelevant.

Furthermore, since article 4 B, on the grounds explained above, allows governments to declare people SUSPECTED of INTENDING to commit acts of terrorism, guilty of a criminal offence, we find that this resolution is in fact in DIRECT VIOLATION of NS UN resolution #27, "Due Process", which states that:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."So lemme get this straight: in the commission of condeming this "largely copied/pasted resolution," you approvingly quote Resolution #27, which nothing more than Amendment V (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) of the U.S. Constitution, in NSUN form?

Our nation would support our 'militant brethren' if they were spreading our message of control and oppression globally. Our army can only spread the message so far.Well, OK. Such activities would be totally inapproprate, and would be outlawed by this resolution. Score one for the Good Guys.

This document outlines what terrorism is and what to do to those who perpetrate it, but then condones similar actions from "State Actors". This is legitimizing governmental terrorism. How about an act which makes all use of violence and threat of force for political reasons illegal.
We all know that terrorists are bad, but what about reckless ntions that kill thousands of innocents while conducting carpet bombing on national capitals, demanding the surrender of a corrupt dictator - who doesn't care about his citizens - before a cessation? Who is the terrorist! If that same nation were to kill four soldiers from a neigboring nation by mistake while holding an enemy airport, or accidentally fire upon a non-combatant from said nation during an unnecisarially hostile occupation, what then?

Come on. If we are going to improve the world, lets put limits on ALL potential terrorists, especially those with national funding!

We have voted against this proposal. In addition to our belief that it allows the possibility of human rights violations, we are swayed by the following considerations:

[1] This resolution is addressing an international danger that does not exist in our universe, although it seems to be a recurring theme in stories that come back from at least one alternative universe sometimes called "RL". Since we don't live in that universe our UN has no need and no mandate to pass laws attempting to regulate behaviour in that universe. It is our opinion that we already have too many UN regulations that address problems from this alternative, possibly imaginary universe, rather than our own.

[2] This resolution does not address the genuine international dangers that are regular features of our own universe, namely "invasion" or "raiding" and the sometimes-associated activity of "region-griefing". In our judgement these are our closest, indeed our only, equivalents to what other universes call "terrorism". The NSUN will not and cannot legislate against invasions; indeed it is illegal for them to do so. It follows that the NSUN can do nothing effectual against these forms of international terrorism in our universe.

[3] This resolution would cost the all UN nations a great deal of money to deal with a non-existent problem while while failing to address our real one.

Vote "NO".

My fellow delegates,
HRH Prince Frederic raised an interesting question this morning in our weekly phone chat, after reading the latest dispatch of mine regarding UN initiatives.
In so far that *special* forces would be needed to combat to combat terrorism, control of these *special* forces would argueably fall to the largest contributor of arms and man-power.
Singmaaringen Prussia urges my fellow delegates to ensure that amendments to this proposal are added that would create a revolving council of delegate nations that would be in effective control of such *special* forces, regardless of contributions, thus ensuring a unilateral approach to situations, as opposed to use of the *special* forces to combat terrorism to be used as an additional international arm of superpowers sans national responsibilty.
Once such protections are built in, guaranteed would be a vote of yes from Singmaaringen Prussia. Thank you.

The Commonalitarianism makes a further request on anti-terrorism forces. We wish to have joint training activities and shared procedures in combatting terrorists to improve methodology and operations efficiency. Although we are glad to send troops, we want to make sure operations have maximum capabilities.

The other issue is one of privacy and records. We wish to limit the access to non-public, records on terrorists to police, military personnel, and select government committees. Also we would like an international record sharing system to be put in place to track such terrorist activity.

Both piracy and nuclear terrorism exist in this game from what I have seen in international incidents.

[1] This resolution is addressing an international danger that does not exist in our universe, although it seems to be a recurring theme in stories that come back from at least one alternative universe sometimes called "RL". Since we don't live in that universe our UN has no need and no mandate to pass laws attempting to regulate behaviour in that universe. It is our opinion that we already have too many UN regulations that address problems from this alternative, possibly imaginary universe, rather than our own. You are wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but so wrong that right is beyond the curvature of the horizon. Terrorism, specifically international terrorism does exist in NS. If you don't believe me, then you wont be too worried about the militant group which has spontaneously received a large delivery of Hirotan made weapons that seeks to overthrow your government.[2] This resolution does not address the genuine international dangers that are regular features of our own universe, namely "invasion" or "raiding" and the sometimes-associated activity of "region-griefing". In our judgement these are our closest, indeed our only, equivalents to what other universes call "terrorism". They are nothing alike, so the observation is irrelevant.[3] This resolution would cost the all UN nations a great deal of money to deal with a non-existent problem while while failing to address our real one.False, it will not cost loads.

And so that everyone can refer to this in case of repetition.

This proposal does absolutely nothing for domestic terrorism - it is international terrorism or the sponsorship of terrorist groups which is legislated on.

Hmm... what scares me now about "special instruments" is that any countries leaning more so towards nuclear weaponry and biological weaponry, which Saorse has a stance against, may now find an excuse to create these weapons unpunished. Would this be allowed under this resolution? I'm trying to get the whole picture here.

I fail to see the connection.

Henry Leronowski speaking for the Ruling Party of The Protectorate of Kerrick the Wise.

"Let me make this clear, the will of the people of this nation, nay, the entire civilized world, is that terrorism in ANY form, is the worst offense that can be committed against a country. Terrorism, defined as any act of aggression against another country without a standing State Of War between the two nations, OR an act of violence directed against the CIVILIAN POPULATION, no matter the circumstances. War is only to be fought on agreed terms and only between soldiers.

These rules do not apply to terrorists nor the nations that would harbor them. Terrorist cells shall be rooted out and eliminated, no matter where they are. Any collateral damage shall only be punishment for harboring these despicable people.

Let it be known, that any nation who does not support this resolution shall be deemed a terrorist state, and a threat to this nation, with all that implies."

We vote against on the grounds that this resolution would ban the sacred right for the proletariat, and others to revolt with violent means.
*snip*

No, it doesn't. You fail at reading comprehension.

This document outlines what terrorism is and what to do to those who perpetrate it, but then condones similar actions from "State Actors".
*snip*

It doesn't condone anything of the sort. In fact, it doesn't address it at all.

No, it doesn't. You fail at reading comprehension.
Um, I think you said that in another forum...

We have voted against this proposal. In addition to our belief that it allows the possibility of human rights violations, we are swayed by the following considerations:

[1] This resolution is addressing an international danger that does not exist in our universe, although it seems to be a recurring theme in stories that come back from at least one alternative universe sometimes called "RL". Since we don't live in that universe our UN has no need and no mandate to pass laws attempting to regulate behaviour in that universe. It is our opinion that we already have too many UN regulations that address problems from this alternative, possibly imaginary universe, rather than our own.

I'm not even touching this mess.

[2] This resolution does not address the genuine international dangers that are regular features of our own universe, namely "invasion" or "raiding" and the sometimes-associated activity of "region-griefing". In our judgement these are our closest, indeed our only, equivalents to what other universes call "terrorism". The NSUN will not and cannot legislate against invasions; indeed it is illegal for them to do so. It follows that the NSUN can do nothing effectual against these forms of international terrorism in our universe.

You're right. No, it doesn't address them. However, your conclusion is flawed. The NSUN can do something against international terrorism, if this proposal passes.

[3] This resolution would cost the all UN nations a great deal of money to deal with a non-existent problem while while failing to address our real one.

It's very nice for you that international terrorism doesn't exist in the world you've concocted for yourself. [/QUOTE]

My fellow delegates,
HRH Prince Frederic raised an interesting question this morning in our weekly phone chat, after reading the latest dispatch of mine regarding UN initiatives.
In so far that *special* forces would be needed to combat to combat terrorism, control of these *special* forces would argueably fall to the largest contributor of arms and man-power.
Singmaaringen Prussia urges my fellow delegates to ensure that amendments to this proposal are added that would create a revolving council of delegate nations that would be in effective control of such *special* forces, regardless of contributions, thus ensuring a unilateral approach to situations, as opposed to use of the *special* forces to combat terrorism to be used as an additional international arm of superpowers sans national responsibilty.
Once such protections are built in, guaranteed would be a vote of yes from Singmaaringen Prussia. Thank you.

Sorry, no, the UN cannot have a military. It's against the rules of the game.

I really wish people would take the time to read the rules...

The Commonalitarianism makes a further request on anti-terrorism forces. We wish to have joint training activities and shared procedures in combatting terrorists to improve methodology and operations efficiency. Although we are glad to send troops, we want to make sure operations have maximum capabilities.

Feel free to roleplay that, if you like.

The other issue is one of privacy and records. We wish to limit the access to non-public, records on terrorists to police, military personnel, and select government committees. Also we would like an international record sharing system to be put in place to track such terrorist activity.

Restrict as you like. The proposal doesn't force you to share such information.

Both piracy and nuclear terrorism exist in this game from what I have seen in international incidents.

Indeed they do. However, piracy is another issue entirely (and one I believe the representative from Gruenberg has considered tackling).

And so that everyone can refer to this in case of repetition.

This proposal does absolutely nothing for domestic terrorism - it is international terrorism or the sponsorship of terrorist groups which is legislated on.

Quoted, because it appears that this needs to be stressed on every page of the thread (although even then, some people still aren't going to get it).

Um, I think you said that in another forum...

I say it whenever it's appropriate. ;)

I might just say it in every post I make from now on.

I might just say it in every post I make from now on.

Just put it in your sig. :D

How many times will I have to counter this objection? This proposal does NOTHING to prevent people from rising up against their government. It merely says that outside nations may not interfere by providing support.

Rising up against their government without the support of outsiders would tend to be a very short lived revolution.

Governments have the weight of their own arms industry, their military and state security apparatus. They may also receive support from outside agencies, buy foreign arms and technology, and receive intelligence support...

Yet we deny the same opportunities to so-called terrorists?

Government terrorism is still terrorism.

This resolution still ignores the socio-economic factors behind "terrorism", and infringes quite a lot on my judicial system. Although I am not against fighting terrorism, the balance in this resolution is still on the wrong side of war-mongering. This resolution pretends that fighting and financialities are the only way to stop terrorism. Also, in a battle for freedom, the line between civilians and military can be thin. I agree that blowing up citizens isn't something to be proud of, but it's too difficult to draw the right line (plain-clothes police, regime-sympathisers, etc).

I vote against.

I've been trying to install an act like this in my own region for months, so I can finally put Martial Law in place. It might finally work.

Originally posted by:

Kerrick the Wise

These rules do not apply to terrorists nor the nations that would harbor them. Terrorist cells shall be rooted out and eliminated, no matter where they are. Any collateral damage shall only be punishment for harboring these despicable people.

In Response:

AesthyraCitizens of these terrorist nations cannot be considered collateral damage. Are you assuming that all citizens agree with their governments?

Cluichstan, in reply to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aesthyra

This document outlines what terrorism is and what to do to those who perpetrate it, but then condones similar actions from "State Actors".

Said:

It doesn't condone anything of the sort. In fact, it doesn't address it at all.

In reply, Aesthyra:

Non intercession is sanction. To apply a law to all, but to exempt "state actors" is to say "This isnt okay, except for state actors"

Citizens of these terrorist nations cannot be considered collateral damage. Are you assuming that all citizens agree with their governments?

Frank Popodopol, Minister of Funny Walks: "Perhaps your country includes some malcontents which resist the loving hand of government, but experience has shown that those who remain must love the government! If not, why do they stay? There's more "loosely" organized nations that would gladly accept them and their whining, and we sure aren't keeping them here. Therefore, any willing citizen of a country must obviously love and enjoy the government! Good day to you sir!"

OOC: All BS is IC.

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad:
You better bring our the military.
We oppose this legislation on the grounds that it takes away the ability of our government to give money to whom ever it wants. As I'm sure it has been said before, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You basically just banned us from supporting any rebellions no matter what, because rebellions normally tend to be "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." just that. So a ban on rebellions? That seems a little foolish.

One thing you're all forgetting: What is terrorism? How do you define terrorism?:mad:

These are dark times, but come on! If I accused someone down the street of being a terrorist, how do I know? A wise man once quoted, "One nation's terrorist is another nation's hero." How do we know if we're not the terrorists? Have you ever thought from another's point-of-view that maybe WE ARE THE TERRORISTS?:sniper:

One thing you're all forgetting: What is terrorism? How do you define terrorism?

That's the first clause of the resolution.

We in the government of Taurains have concerns with this piece of legislation. We attempt to place as few restrictions upon our citizenry as possible. If they have a few million bull stanks to burn, why should they not be allowed to do with it as they please? The real international terror is allowing other countries to produce inferior products and flood the international markets with them, thereby decreasing our ability to do the same. I've already got lobbyists pounding on my door to secretly FUND terrorist groups that target our industries main competitors.

This of course poses the problem of retaliation. My government cannot simply allow other nations to do to us what we would do to them. Perhaps we could include some form of anti-retaliatory corporate sabotage amendment?

Such an amendment would have my vote.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

Fellow delegates I stand before you all to give a heartfelt yes vote, for the current Anti Terrorism legislation. It is well thought out, and deals with a growing international problem. I think Cluichstan, and all those who helped draft this legislation and get it to vote before this agust body should be commended.(OOC: and if you think International terrorism is not a NS problem go lurk in the International Incidents forum RP sometime). Some of my esteemed fellow UN members state that this resolution bans people rebelling againt a lawful government. If you would read the resolution it does not. It insted cracks down on those groups exporting terrorism beyond a nation's borders. Only those groups that export thier fight to other soverign nations would be affected by this fine piece of legislation(OCC:like in RL, the Provo IRA,the Basque Separists,Hamas,ect).

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

One thing you're all forgetting: What is terrorism? How do you define terrorism?:mad:

These are dark times, but come on! If I accused someone down the street of being a terrorist, how do I know? A wise man once quoted, "One nation's terrorist is another nation's hero." How do we know if we're not the terrorists? Have you ever thought from another's point-of-view that maybe WE ARE THE TERRORISTS?:sniper:

Ah yes... this brings us back to a conversation between Bart Simpson and his evil twin:

Bart: You're Crazy!
Evil Twin: Am I? Maybe we're all a little crazy... I know I am.

In order to determine the answer to the question, "is my government the terrorist?" one must simply be able to answer these questions truthfully:

Do I try to scare the people of my country or other countries into doing what I want? Do I offer the threat of force against those who oppose me? Do I provide security for those who believe as I do, but attempt to capture, coerse, or kill this who don't? Will you allow people the freedom to disagree with you, so long as they don't use violent means to do so?

Of course by this definition, my country is not a terrorist organization. I allow hippies in my country, and I allow them the opportunity to speak. So long as they can come up with the 500,000 bull stanks a year required to obtain the license to do so.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

Fellow delegates I stand before you all to give a heartfelt yes vote, for the current Anti Terrorism legislation. It is well thought out, and deals with a growing international problem. I think Cluichstan, and all those who helped draft this legislation and get it to vote before this agust body should be commended.(OOC: and if you think International terrorism is not a NS problem go lurk in the International Incidents forum RP sometime). Some of my esteemed fellow UN members state that this resolution bans people rebelling againt a lawful government. If you would read the resolution it does not. It insted cracks down on those groups exporting terrorism beyond a nation's borders. Only those groups that export thier fight to other soverign nations would be affected by this fine piece of legislation(OCC:like in RL, the Provo IRA,the Basque Separists,Hamas,ect).

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I'm afraid I must disagree. This bill will not just affect those who HARBOUR and EXPORT terrorism, but also those who FUND terrorism. I cannot allow other governments to confiscate the accounts of my citizens that are choosing how they will spend/invest their hard earned bull stanks. Now I'm not saying that my nations citizens are currently funding such atrocities, but I cannot allow legislation to pass that bans their POTENTIAL to do so.

Yours,

The Ambassdor of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak"

Ah, another UN vote. Isn't it beautiful to see the many member nations of this body come together and decide the fate of our world? Anyway, I am in favor of this proposal as of right now but I do have questions. Or mainly just a question...in the process of a civil war, rebelling factions usually seek international support mainly to legitimize their cause. This resolution however disallows this international support for rebelling factions in these civil wars. Without the legitimizing support of international players many rebelling factions might as well just not revolt. Is it right, as people who live for freedom and democracy, is it right for us to not support our freedom fighting brothers?

Perhaps it would be better to limit this resolution to only state that attacking large numbers of non-combatants would be illegal? It seems that with all the various provisions in this resolution (especially funding) it won't get approved.

*snip*http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/spongebobweed9gb.jpg

4
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


This is a terrible thing. If it is the case that we have charged them with these crimes then, and only then should we be allowed to freeze their funds because it is easy to claim that anyone is "intending to commit" It is facist. We cannot allow their freedoms to be taken so quickly. Like I said eariler, after formalized charges have been brought should these acts be allowed to take place.

Instead of freezing, take the cash o-o tEh M()()|a|-|

=D

On the behalf of the people of the Republic of Grand Maritoll, I would like to comment the efforts of the creators of this resolution to crack down on militant ideological groups that often plague just and upstanding governments.

When I first noticed this resolution being formed, I was greatly concerned, because it is an alarmingly common and growing trend for countries, especially lawless "countries" run by anarchy, to condemn the efforts of the government of Grand Maritoll, to prevent the rule of bloody anarchy, as "terrorism".

Upon close inspection of this resolution, I have found no cause to fear, for the framers of this resolution were wise in their words and wary of the possibility that insurgent terrorist groups might in fact hide under the guise of this resolution in order to escape justice delievered sternly and swiftly by the government of Grand Maritoll under the Extremely Wise Guidance of Kinjion, the Lord of Grand Maritoll. Those who drafted this resolution deserve every commendation for their efforts to insure that terrorist groups are not allowed to have the upper hand over proper government control.


Best Regards,

Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua


All of the content in this statement is sanctioned and supported by His Lordship, Kinjion. May he reign eternally over the citizens of Grand Maritoll and eventually over the citizens of the world.

Um, I think you said that in another forum...Nah. He just stole it from me ;)

The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield adamantly supports this UN Resolution. Terrorists are a critical threat to the international community as a whole. Furthermore, we The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield believe that this resolution is the best answer to a growing problem, which until now has been unchecked.

Ambassador Sergio Gorvun,
The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield

I vote AGAINST this resolution.

Repression is NOT the solution to end terrorism.
The only one solution is taking billions dollars to the most rich men of the world, for example (what represent 10 billions for this so rich men ?), to eradicate poverty, because without poverty, there is NO terrorism.
terrorism is the last desesperate hope for a dying country. Give us money, food and water, that's all they need, no more, and they don't send you bombs or whatever, no more terrorism !

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

Ps : I feel this resolution as a "Patriot Act", don't you think ?

Becquerelia fully supports, 100 percent, the motion on the floor of the United Nations. However, regarding a previously brought up question. While the United Nations cannot have military forces, is there anything preventing those nations of the world who abhor terrorism from creating a anti-terror military force with a full NationStates scope (A NATO against terror, if you will)?

Benjamin Siebe
Becquerelian Ambassador to the United Nations

because without poverty, there is NO terrorism.Then why are most terrorists from middle to upper-middle class families?

Becquerelia fully supports, 100 percent, the motion on the floor of the United Nations. However, regarding a previously brought up question. While the United Nations cannot have military forces, is there anything preventing those nations of the world who abhor terrorism from creating a anti-terror military force with a full NationStates scope (A NATO against terror, if you will)?

Benjamin Siebe
Becquerelian Ambassador to the United Nations

To do so would be treading a thin line along the boundaries of Universal Code, which states that there shall be no international police forces established, as you are apparently aware. No, I don't think creating a non-UN organization would be very practical, but I suppose you are welcome to try.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

The Holy Empire of Denidosh is against this legislation. As others have stated before, the connotation of the word "terrorism" is highly skewed. If one of my citizens were to step out of the boundaries therefore protection of Denidosh to risk terrorizing another nation, the recieving nation has every right to do with them what they wanted to. Denidosh would recieve terroristic behaviour as a threat and therefore an act of war (as stated by many others.) I would suppose from what the UN is trying to pass that this funding would go to worldwide policing to minimize terrorism; as others wonder, what about freedom fighters? They fit the description of 'terrorist' as well because some civilians have power and are in the way of the objective at hand and have to be redirected in whichever way possible.

And as noted to The Federal Republic of omigodikilledkenny, your threat is hypocrtical to that of which you're trying to vote. If this law passes and you are threatening those with 'terrorism' that oppose it, you are giving every other nation permission to rebel against the law.

Not only does this law conflict with civil rights, it conflicts with economy, and every nation has the right of power to their type of economy.

The Holy Empire of Denidosh is against this legislation. As others have stated before, the connotation of the word "terrorism" is highly skewed. If one of my citizens were to step out of the boundaries therefore protection of Denidosh to risk terrorizing another nation, the recieving nation has every right to do with them what they wanted to.

It is because of this situation that the Republic of Grand Maritoll expressly forbids any emigration.

As a side note, always remember: Civil rights end where the Government begins.

Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

...in the process of a civil war, rebelling factions usually seek international support mainly to legitimize their cause. This resolution however disallows this international support for rebelling factions in these civil wars. Without the legitimizing support of international players many rebelling factions might as well just not revolt. Is it right, as people who live for freedom and democracy, is it right for us to not support our freedom fighting brothers?

Ah yes... the rebellion. In Taurains we have a thriving movie industry, and a movie recently passed through the censorship board that in fact dealt with a fictional rebellion that occured long long ago in a galaxy far far away.

Also an immensely popular fiction series was written about a country called Jamerica. Before becoming a country, its peoples were being brutally dominated by an evil Mother Country. This Mother Country was so evil that they even taxed without representation! So the people of the colonies decided that they would revolt against this evil practice. This revolution proved to be successful, but only with the help of the Mother Country's arch-rivals: The Free Republic of Frogonia.

As the story goes, this country eventually grew into an Economic and Military Superpower. This country's ideals changed. It become more interested in a world where there were no civil wars, because civil wars are bad for business. The only reason to invade a country is because it poses a terrorist threat against their own country. Meanwhile it no longer had any interest in other countries that were suffering under vile dictatorships, because after all awful human rights abuses don't matter so long as they aren't being taxed without representation.

Anyway, this is just a story from my home country. Perhaps it doesn't apply to what you are discussing here.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

I vote AGAINST this resolution.

Repression is NOT the solution to end terrorism.
The only one solution is taking billions dollars to the most rich men of the world, for example (what represent 10 billions for this so rich men ?), to eradicate poverty, because without poverty, there is NO terrorism.
terrorism is the last desesperate hope for a dying country. Give us money, food and water, that's all they need, no more, and they don't send you bombs or whatever, no more terrorism !

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

Ps : I feel this resolution as a "Patriot Act", don't you think ?

OMG. The Robin Hood lifetime achievement award for irrelevance goes to...

bush would pass this... so should you?

Then why are most terrorists from middle to upper-middle class families?

As the french delegate, as you know the french who collaborated to 9/11 will be judged tomorrow, so i can say that it could be right, BUT :
- Who has the money ? Bin Laden, and some people, who attract people in the third-world countries, give us money and send us to the country they want to attack. They fit in the country, nobody worries, and you know the end...
Without poverty, Bin Laden and the others has nobody to manipulate, so the terrorism is finished.

OMG. The Robin Hood lifetime achievement award for irrelevance goes to...

It is not robin Hood !
5 % of the planet has 80% of the money. You don't see the problem ? That's normal the 95% of poor say "no" to that fact. Give us little money to survive and they won't use terrorism, because they will feel their life is as the life of the others 5%.

To support "freedom fighters" is to support anti-society terrorist actions. Governments have a right to solidify their control over the people in the interests of the saftety of the people.

If you support "freedom fighters" then you support the dissolution of governments in general and in specific, including this austere body. A "freedom fighters" clause, would actually be an anarchist terrorist clause, allowing for terrorists who support chaos and a lack of law throughout the world to conduct their business, sanctioned by the very bodies of law they seek to destroy. For the preservation of order in the world, a "freedom fighters" clause must not be added.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

The Thin red line between freedom fighters and terrorists is freedom fighters don't intentionally butcher civilians. Terrorists do.

Ambassador Sergio Gorvun,
The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield

It is not robin Hood !
5 % of the planet has 80% of the money. You don't see the problem ? That's normal the 95% of poor say "no" to that fact. Give us little money to survive and they won't use terrorism, because they will feel their life is as the life of the others 5%.

Please, this a a resolution about international terrorism. Terrorists are bad bad criminals, and they kill nice inocent civilians.

Take your international aid proposal elsewhere, and I may even support it. But it is irrelevant for this debate.

bush would pass this... so should you?"bush"? Who's that?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/confused1sa.jpg

The Thin red line between freedom fighters and terrorists is freedom fighters don't intentionally butcher civilians. Terrorists do.

Ambassador Sergio Gorvun,
The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield

Quite right.

It is not robin Hood !
5 % of the planet has 80% of the money. You don't see the problem ? That's normal the 95% of poor say "no" to that fact. Give us little money to survive and they won't use terrorism, because they will feel their life is as the life of the others 5%.

Hmmm... The Grand People of Taurains sees your anguish. It seems that no matter how hard we try to eliminate poverty within our own borders, it seems to still exist beyond them. Perhaps this argument does or does not fit the topic at hand. If you believe that poverty inspires terrorism I suppose it does. I suggest a proposal like the one currently being inacted within our own borders:

Nothing in Taurains is free. Our people have come to accept that. People who lean on the government for social benefits (the few that we do offer) must pay some sort of price for this benefit. They are currently allowed only one child per person recieveing benefits. We have noticed that in other socially "responsible" countires, that those who cannot afford more children are the ones who tend to have them. In fact there are examples where people have more children simply because the government provides a greater ammount for each additional child. Now as a responsible government, we realize that we neither wish to decrease the standard of living by simply cutting off benefits to those who break our laws, nor do we wish to give them additional money. Of course, the United Nations may not like the idea of Mandatory abortions, so we simply... cut off their ability to further reproduce. A couple can still have all the pleasures of sex, with none of the responsibilities of raising more kids. And once they are back on their feet and working again (mandated within three years on penalty of deportation), the procedure can be reversed.

Poverty is the result of an uncaring government, an unfunded education system, a stagnant economy, or inferior health. So if terrorism is caused by poverty, simply injecting money into the system doesn't cure poverty. Poverty is about not having a source of money. Giving that money to the people is a one time shot. Eventually you are going to run out of Billionaires (especially since they will go into hiding once they see what's going on). Instead why not fix the source of the problem, put money into education, venture capital, and infrastructure. Of course Taurains will not ever allow you to take their citizens bull stanks. However, if your people are poor, we can get them on a program that will keep them from killing each other while also stimulating the economy. However, if your people breach contract... well their are ways we have of dealing with such people...

As always...

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak"

The Thin red line between freedom fighters and terrorists is freedom fighters don't intentionally butcher civilians. Terrorists do.

Ambassador Sergio Gorvun,
The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield

But keep in mind, "intentional butcher of civilians" is not the definition that the resolution uses. Most of the practices of freedom fighters fit the description of terrorism used. After all, if they were non-violent, they would be called freedom wanters.

This is idiotic. First off I am sure that the outside worlds has had more influence on people's decisions than what happens in NS. This shouldn't be so. Secondly, and more importantly, even in real life this resolution WOULD NOT WORK. Have none of you read the resolution? No where does it allow outside influences to attempt to prevent terrorism in other nations. Honest nations would already be trying to root out terrorism and the corrupt would just pay the resolution lip service. The resolution changes nothing.

Also, where does it provide proof that such a resolution is neccesary? I wasn't even aware this simulation allowed terrorism to occur. The closest thing is crime and by the way, Omigodtheykilledkenny's crime is crippling and Cluichstani UN Mission is certainly no beacon of hope either. Perhaps they should focus on fixing reality before they go chasing shadows and tackling nightmares. This resolution MUST FALL.

This should sum up the main body of arguments as far as I can see.

Why you should vote against this legislation:

1) Freeze WITHOUT DELAY funds or other financial assets…

a. All member nations should have some form of due process for suspected criminals. In this case, due process should be observed before any punishments can be enforced.
b. The person or people who are suspected to be involved may have families that depend on the financial assets of the accused. To freeze these assets WITHOUT DELAY is to ignore due process in many countries.

2) …persons who commit, INTEND to commit or facilitate the commission…

a. I’ll just jump into the device that allows me to see what crimes people intend on committing.

3) …entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons…

a. If the person accused of being involved in or funding terrorist activities happens to own a number of businesses, freezing them could potentially put a great many jobs at risk. With the sorry state of social services in my country, I don’t think that increasing the unemployment rate is a good idea.

4) …persons and entities acting on behalf of OR at the direction of…

a. Taking orders that do not appear to be harmful and yet are directly related to sponsoring terrorism should not be punished. The language of this seem to indicate that we should punish people based on who they work for, report to, or associate with.

What people are arguing about (including myself) that is defeated by the definition:

1) Defines… non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting PRIMARILY and DELIBERATELY the civilian population…

a. This pretty much means that unless your precious Freedom Fighters are primarily targeting civilians within the government, they will not be outlawed by this doctrine.

2) …violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors…

a. Does not seem to have a problem with Economic goals. My previous arguments regarding this section are withdrawn. So long as I can still fund groups that target civilians that do not buy products built in my country or competitors who have facilities in other countries, I’m okay with this part of the resolution.

If this resolution comes back with the above section amended, I will throw my support behind it.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

“Change is the Crutch of the Weak.”

I really dislike this resolution. The way it is written suggests that it is not meant to fight terrorism but rather to support governments by criminalizing a significant number and variety of forms of opposition to them, and my own politics cannot accept that. Questions of legitimate, rightful governments should be left to each individual nation and not a matter for the United Nations.

[...]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.

"Intimidating and coercing governments" just as easily applies to interest groups, advocates, and political parties as it does to terrorism. I do not condone targeting civilians, but the amount of space given to it in the context of this resolution I believe is telling of the true nature, real or accidental, of this resolution. This definition of terrorism is dangerously broad, and unacceptable.

Furthermore, section 4 is completely incompatible with the laws and goals my own nation, and it is a drastic infringement on sovereignty. As an international capitalistic hub, we cannot accept such limitations on finance without economic loss, nor curtail its relations with non-state actors be they of a militaristic, peaceful, or financial nature. As a libertarian society, any group is free to operate within the borders regardless of its "political, religious, or ideological" views so long as it obeys the Peace within them. What it does outside of our borders is of no concern.

I see the iron first and smell the wretched stank of the heavy hand of authoritarianism in the words of this resolution. Vote No!

The enlightened peoples of Harfold are absolutely outraged and disgusted by the terms put forward by such a resolution, limiting our freedoms to dabble in whichever international affairs that we deem appropriate.

The true state sponsored terrorism is that put forward by those who wish to impede the seekers of true honour and justice. A vote against this resolution is a vote for freedom.

The Thin red line between freedom fighters and terrorists is freedom fighters don't intentionally butcher civilians. Terrorists do.

Ambassador Sergio Gorvun,
The People's Republic of the Shattered Shield

Its called 'collateral damage' when the good guys intentionally butcher civilians

I am going to speak...calmly...and slowly.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of proposal people would oppose very strongly if:
1. They hadn't read it thoroughly.
2. They hadn't reviewed past NSUN resolutions.
3. They were forgetting that NS=/=RL, that Cluichstan=/=Bush, and that this proposal=/=The Patriot Act.

So, before speaking up again, can I advise everyone, FOR or AGAINST, to:
1. Take a deep breath.
2. Read the proposal. Really read it.
3. Check out the NSUN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).
4. Exhale.

Thank you. That way I'm sure the debate will be a lot more productive. :)

*shrugs*

It's not exactly my slant, but I see nothing wrong with it, and it isn't poorly written. You have my vote.

I am going to speak...calmly...and slowly.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of proposal people would oppose very strongly if:
...
3. They were forgetting that NS=/=RL, that Cluichstan=/=Bush, and that this proposal=/=The Patriot Act.


Thank you. That way I'm sure the debate will be a lot more productive. :)

Almost but not quite. I think some people support this because they think that in real life they are threatened by terrorism so should pass this because is should protect them. That is ridiculous. This Will NOT make you safer in real life. Even in the real world this would not make them safer. This is a nice idea BUT IT DOES NOT WORK. Comprende? The resolution doesn't work. All it does is suggest ways governements should clean up terrorism. It can't force them to and it can't help those who are trying to but don't have the resources to do so effectively. It WOULD NOT make your nation more secure. READ IT. Actually read what the resolution says instead of being wowed over by the wording. It's all suggestions and proclamations of stances but DOES NOTHING. Ignore the values and see the content. If you want something more effective, write a better resolution. If you don't want the UN to have influence in you nation vote down the next one but either way this one should not pass. IT DOES NOTHING! Simple. It's true. The resolution does nothing. I don't know how much simpler I can say this. Don't vote for it.:mad:

Exactly, I think some people support this because they think that in real life they are threatened by terrorism so should pass this because is should protect them. That is ridiculous. This Will NOT make you safer in real life. Even in the real world this would not make them safer. This is a nice idea BUT IT DOES NOT WORK. Comprende? The resolution doesn't work. All it does is suggest ways governements should clean up terrorism. It can't force them to and it can't help those who are trying to but don't have the resources to do so effectively. It WOULD NOT make your nation more secure. READ IT. Actually read what the resolution says instead of being wowed over by the wording. It's all suggestions and proclamations of stances but DOES NOTHING. Ignore the values. If you want something more effective, write a better resolution. If you don't want the UN to have influence in you nation vote down the next one but either way this one should not pass. IT DOES NOTHING! Simple. It's true. The resolution does nothing. I don't know how much simpler I can say this. Don't vote for it.
I assume you don't know what 'mandates' means. I guess you're not a native English speaker: what is your first language? I'll try to translate it for you so you can understand. Sorry for the confusion.

I really dislike this resolution. The way it is written suggests that it is not meant to fight terrorism but rather to support governments by criminalizing a significant number and variety of forms of opposition to them, and my own politics cannot accept that. Questions of legitimate, rightful governments should be left to each individual nation and not a matter for the United Nations.

[...]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.

"Intimidating and coercing governments" just as easily applies to interest groups, advocates, and political parties as it does to terrorism. I do not condone targeting civilians, but the amount of space given to it in the context of this resolution I believe is telling of the true nature, real or accidental, of this resolution. This definition of terrorism is dangerously broad, and unacceptable.

Furthermore, section 4 is completely incompatible with the laws and goals my own nation, and it is a drastic infringement on sovereignty. As an international capitalistic hub, we cannot accept such limitations on finance without economic loss, nor curtail its relations with non-state actors be they of a militaristic, peaceful, or financial nature. As a libertarian society, any group is free to operate within the borders regardless of its "political, religious, or ideological" views so long as it obeys the Peace within them. What it does outside of our borders is of no concern.

I see the iron first and smell the wretched stank of the heavy hand of authoritarianism in the words of this resolution. Vote No!


I'm inclined to agree with Klopstock on this one. This resolution isn't much more than a way for the government to better get a hold over interest groups and unions (though I agree that they can sometimes be dangerous and overinfluincing, it's ultimately the character of people that changes things, not the amount of legislation surrounding a topic.)

That said, Duchek will most likely be voting against this resolution unless we can be convinced otherwise.

I am going to speak...calmly...and slowly.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of proposal people would oppose very strongly if:
1. They hadn't read it thoroughly.
2. They hadn't reviewed past NSUN resolutions.
3. They were forgetting that NS=/=RL, that Cluichstan=/=Bush, and that this proposal=/=The Patriot Act.


4. They were quite content for their nation to support international terrorism, or sense an economic advantage should companies within their nation choose to do so.

Not being American neither Bush nor the Patriot Act has any real bearing or relevance to me or on how I choose to play a game

I'm not American either. The fact this is a game is the point I was trying to make. However, several people seem to believe this resolution will give states the powers some recent RL anti-terror legislation has. That's just not true.

Regardless of what the UN says about terror, we will follow our own path. It is necessary for the Theocracy of Salafi Iraqistan in time of war...you wanna stop us...bring it on (DISCLAIMER: SALAFI IRAQISTAN'S PRIMARY INFLUENCES ARE IRAN AND SYRIA!!!)

This bill is poorly written and lacks any clear definitions.

Not to mention two parts of the bill contradict.

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;

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

An immediate freeze on funds is punishment before a trial, and then it says to fight through judicial means.

This bill is one of the worst I've ever seen. Vote against it. If your delegate votes for it, remove your endorsement. Please don't support this bill in any way.

This bill is poorly written and lacks any clear definitions.
DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 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, for the purpose of this resolution, 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 state, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

Not to mention two parts of the bill contradict.

An immediate freeze on funds is punishment before a trial, and then it says to fight through judicial means.
Under your logic, it would be illegal to actually have a trial, as the following would be illegal:
1. Detaining the suspect.
2. Collecting evidence.

This bill is one of the worst I've ever seen. Vote against it. If your delegate votes for it, remove your endorsement. Please don't support this bill in any way.
It's getting quite tiring telling you this. But please, read the proposals before you comment on them.

I assume you don't know what 'mandates' means. I guess you're not a native English speaker: what is your first language? I'll try to translate it for you so you can understand. Sorry for the confusion.

I know what "mandates" means. Your problem is you can't think beyond. What is the punishment for failing to comply? How will they regulate this, verify their accusations and in essense, run this entire program? All the UN will have done is lay out a set of commands and then sit back on its fat haunches at hope the nations do as it says. It'll never go and check. It'll never try to make others comply. This resolution tells the UN to talk like a big man and then just sit there. So irregardless of language and wording, this resolution doesn't have a spine, just like the UN if we implement it.

I know what "mandates" means. Your problem is you can't think beyond. What is the punishment for failing to comply? How will they regulate this, verify their accusations and in essense, run this entire program? All the UN will have done is lay out a set of commands and then sit back on its fat haunches at hope the nations do as it says. It'll never go and check. It'll never try to make others comply. This resolution tells the UN to talk like a big man and then just sit there. So irregardless of language and wording, this resolution doesn't have a spine, just like the UN if we implement it.
That's the same for every resolution. Compliance is automatic: if this passes, you'll get a TG from the Compliance Ministry telling you you're in compliance. So your criticism isn't actually of the proposal, it's of the game mechanism. Which means this proposal is no worse than every other resolution we've ever passed.

I'd direct you to this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9900794&postcount=8

I know what "mandates" means. Your problem is you can't think beyond. What is the punishment for failing to comply? How will they regulate this, verify their accusations and in essense, run this entire program? All the UN will have done is lay out a set of commands and then sit back on its fat haunches at hope the nations do as it says. It'll never go and check. It'll never try to make others comply. This resolution tells the UN to talk like a big man and then just sit there. So irregardless of language and wording, this resolution doesn't have a spine, just like the UN if we implement it.

OOC: My dear Mr_Fishington, your contribution to this debate is sincerely appreciated. Now, if you could momentarily reholster your blazing guns, I am sure you would benefit from taking a look at the stickies. You see, NS is a game, and as every game, it has rules. One of those rules clearly assures us that the UN Gnomes bring every UN member to automatic compliance with international law. As such, your concerns are of no relevance.

Oh, and check your attitude at the door. Many would react to your previous posts with a simple "shut the fuck up and read the fucking FAQ."

I know what "mandates" means. Your problem is you can't think beyond. What is the punishment for failing to comply? How will they regulate this, verify their accusations and in essense, run this entire program? All the UN will have done is lay out a set of commands and then sit back on its fat haunches at hope the nations do as it says. It'll never go and check. It'll never try to make others comply. This resolution tells the UN to talk like a big man and then just sit there. So irregardless of language and wording, this resolution doesn't have a spine, just like the UN if we implement it.Shut the fuck up and read the fucking FAQ. :p

Oh, and "irregardless" isn't a word, moron.

Regardless of what the UN says about terror, we will follow our own path. It is necessary for the Theocracy of Salafi Iraqistan in time of war...you wanna stop us...bring it on (DISCLAIMER: SALAFI IRAQISTAN'S PRIMARY INFLUENCES ARE IRAN AND SYRIA!!!)

You do realize that you can't not follow the resolution if you are a UN member, and if you aren't a UN member, it goes without saying that you will probably follow your own path on any issue ;)

Omigodtheykilledkenny, please watch your language. Aural sex isn't as popular as one might think, so there are probably many virgin ears around, smilies or no.

That's the same for every resolution. Compliance is automatic: if this passes, you'll get a TG from the Compliance Ministry telling you you're in compliance. So your criticism isn't actually of the proposal, it's of the game mechanism. Which means this proposal is no worse than every other resolution we've ever passed.

I'd direct you to this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9900794&postcount=8

To be more realistic (although I hate to say a word against Gruenberg who is so helpful) I think it would be a good idea to include at least a placebo plan for pseudo-enforcement next time we make a resolution such as this, to give it a more real feeling instead of meta-gaming in a sense by taking semi-unrealistic game mechanics for granted. Sure, there is no way any UN member could actually ignore the resolution, but why not word it as if they could? Just a thought.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

Terrorism is the worst form of warfare. Destroy the bastards with everything we have.:mp5:

To be more realistic (although I hate to say a word against Gruenberg who is so helpful) I think it would be a good idea to include at least a placebo plan for pseudo-enforcement next time we make a resolution such as this, to give it a more real feeling instead of meta-gaming in a sense by taking semi-unrealistic game mechanics for granted. Sure, there is no way any UN member could ignore the resolution, but why not word it as if they could? Just a thought.

OOC: I was thinking this resolution - and compliance or non-compliance with it - would make for a really interesting RP if it passed.

OOC: I was thinking this resolution - and compliance or non-compliance with it - would make for a really interesting RP if it passed.

OOC: That last post was, by the way

IC: I'll enjoy discussing my methods of squashing rebellions under UN sanction :D

BTW:

You see, NS is a game, and as every game, it has rules. One of those rules clearly assures us that the UN Gnomes bring every UN member to automatic compliance with international law.The Creative Solutions Agency might have something to say about that ...

BTW:

The Creative Solutions Agency might have something to say about that ...
Remember, all the gnomes care about is that you're in compliance with the letter of the law.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

To be more realistic (although I hate to say a word against Gruenberg who is so helpful) I think it would be a good idea to include at least a placebo plan for pseudo-enforcement next time we make a resolution such as this, to give it a more real feeling instead of meta-gaming in a sense by taking semi-unrealistic game mechanics for granted. Sure, there is no way any UN member could actually ignore the resolution, but why not word it as if they could? Just a thought.


Jacob Spatz,
President Perpetua

This message is endorsed by His Lordship Kinjion. May he reign over Grand Maritoll eternally and the whole world eventually.

Thing is proposals are limited in size, and some good authors would rather use those characters to improve the proposal rather than just put a "you will do this or else" line in that the auto compliance makes un-necessary and a waste of space.

I agree with you that it can make a proposal look more real, so to speak, but the gnomes do a pretty good job of enforcement, except in those nations where they are an endangered species ;).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/cd81932c.jpg

Just for the record, I've voted against the resolution.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/gnomes7yy.jpg

If my nation was to capture a terrorist/s currently using my border to escape a nation they have caused widespread damage, would I then have to prosecute these terrorists in my Nation? Would I also be responsible for paying for their defense during trial since I would advise all nations to freeze the known assests of these Terrorists?

Famous quotes;

"Democracy grows from the barrel of a gun, that hasn't been supplied by any outside agency or state."

"Guns or Butter? Got to be butter... terrorists aren't allowed to buy guns from us."

"They can conquer, who believe they can... of course some guns would be nice, but nobody is allowed to sell us any."

:mp5: :sniper: DIE TERRORISTS! Actually, the world is over-populating. Death is basically the only cure to it. I know we're talking about rights of the public so I'll get on to it :P

I say yes to this, because deaths of people is more important that losing a few rights. Or so the people of 2006 think but probably not what the year 2050 think. Kill 50 people now, those 50 people could have produced 150 in 2050. Then it turns into 500 by 2075. :P

Actually, the world is over-populating. Death is basically the only cure to it. I know we're talking about rights of the public so I'll get on to it :P

I say yes to this, because deaths of people is more important that losing a few rights. Or so the people of 2006 think but probably not what the year 2050 think. Kill 50 people now, those 50 people could have produced 150 in 2050. Then it turns into 500 by 2075. :P

Good call... We'll start the list with you then, shall we?

Liked it, but got somewhat insecure here:
"(...)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(...)". I wonder if "the use of communications technologies" would mean an opening for surveilance of innocent civilians too, given that this appears to be technologies used by everybody. Not sure about this.:confused:

No, surveillance of innocent civilians is protected under resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion".

Kerrick the Wise:

Frank Popodopol, Minister of Funny Walks: "Perhaps your country includes some malcontents which resist the loving hand of government, but experience has shown that those who remain must love the government! If not, why do they stay? There's more "loosely" organized nations that would gladly accept them and their whining, and we sure aren't keeping them here. Therefore, any willing citizen of a country must obviously love and enjoy the government! Good day to you sir!"

OOC: All BS is IC.

I forsee Mr. Popodopol heading to his car after work, performing a flawless tripple-stumble-twisted-hobbble-hop. I see him get in, and start the engine. I see a large explosion.

After all the flames, I see a note being discovered on a nearby pram
"Dear Mr Popodopol, this carbombing was officially sanctioned by a State Actor"

OOC: I'll leave Hirota/Cluichstan to address your claims. However: the legal argument is a stupid one, as you've clearly already thought it up. So why didn't you report it? The mods can't delete it now.

To be honest, it didn't even occur to me.

Then again, the arguments weren't intended to question the legality of the resolution as related to game mechanics.

They were RP arguments intended to question the legality of the resolution as related to individual NS nations and NS UN criminal laws.

If you sponsor Terrorism then you're my nation's enemy so there :P

So far, perfectly legal.

Sorry, but no, it isn't.

The whole purpose of criminal law is to punish criminals for committing offences against the state.

Apart from the further complicating fact for this resolution that different nations have varying criminal laws, the basic premise is that in order to indict and punish criminals, they must be properly charged with a crime, allowed due process, and a number of elements of the offense must be proven by the prosecuting authority. One of these elements being the 'mens rea', or the proven intent.

This resolution allows, and even mandates, the freezing of a person's assets based only on alleged intent. Freezing of assets is an infringement on a person's liberty and property, since it deprives them of their livelihood.

Freezing an assest is not seizing it. This Proposal does not cause a violation here; nations simply need to follow the proper steps:

Suspect identified -> Assets frozen -> Due process stuff -> assests either unfrozen or seized, depending on trial results.

Same as above. The freezing of assets is an infringement on a person's liberty and property, since it deprives them of their livelihood. Therefore, it constitutes a pre-emptive punishment for an alleged crime of which the accused might well be innocent. Therefore, it is a violation of civil rights.

You're using a ridiculously broad interpretation here. The trail you're following leads to the outlawing of prisons as prisoners aren't being "treated equally".

With the important exception of course, that prisoners in democratic countries with working judicial systems have been properly accused, granted due process and found guilty according to the pre-requisites of criminal law.

Who's really using a ridiculously broad interpretation here?

Again, not illegal. Just as an arrest happens before the trial, the freezing of assests happens before the trial. Much like what happens in the real world with people suspected of dealing drugs.

For the third time, same as above. It is illegal.

1. You're wrong.

I'm wrong?

Wow... you really told me with that eloquent, compelling argument.

2. As Hack already explained, it is perfectly legal. Thanks, Hack!

As I've already explained to Hack, it is most certainly not perfectly legal, and furthermore it tries to impose judicial procedures on sovereign nations, which might be completely contrary to their respective bodies of common law.

3. You're arrogant and obnoxious. I hope that your refusal to accept or recognise this proposal means we won't be hearing anymore from you. Oh, and good luck refusing to accept or recognise it once it passes.)

Too bad you feel that way, but it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over. As for refusing acceptance or recognition of resolutions, I am fully aware of the game mechanics, but afaik, everyone can RP non-compliance at their own discretion.

Oh, dear. Can you read, Einstein?:

Unimpededly, thank you. How about you?

If there's anything that's flawed here, it's not my reading comprehension skills, but the structure of this resolution.

Now, tell me, which among the preceding provisions allows for "state terrorism" in any way, shape or form?

The effectiveness of laws is not measured by what they define but by what they actually do. You dither over the definition of terrorism in this proposal because it does not include "state terrorism," but the actual force of the resolution would not allow any such activities, so your concerns are irrelevant.

This entire argument is invalid.

Since the resolution has already clearly defined and established what terrorism is, and that only non-state actors can be declared guilty of it, it has effectively stripped itself of any further possibility of interpretations.

This means that any subsequent articles are only leading to the resolution becoming self-contradictory, which renders it hopelessly confused and meaningless.

So lemme get this straight: in the commission of condeming this "largely copied/pasted resolution," you approvingly quote Resolution #27, which nothing more than Amendment V (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) of the U.S. Constitution, in NSUN form?

Let me set you straight: My objection to this resolution isn't that it contains parts that are copied/pasted.

It's how they are put together and revised and thus the sum of the parts I object to.

Apart from the further complicating fact for this resolution that different nations have varying criminal laws, the basic premise is that in order to indict and punish criminals, they must be properly charged with a crime, allowed due processIncorrect. They can be incarcerated before conviction. Why do you think bail exists? Freezing assests is not different then holding someone without bail. It's also a temporary measure to be taken as part of broader action. Specifically, charging the suspect with a crime.

For the third time, same as above. It is illegal.Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.

I vote AGAINST this resolution.

Repression is NOT the solution to end terrorism.
The only one solution is taking billions dollars to the most rich men of the world, for example (what represent 10 billions for this so rich men ?), to eradicate poverty, because without poverty, there is NO terrorism.
terrorism is the last desesperate hope for a dying country. Give us money, food and water, that's all they need, no more, and they don't send you bombs or whatever, no more terrorism !

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

Ps : I feel this resolution as a "Patriot Act", don't you think ?

Ah, the blackmail argument. "Give us stuff, and we'll stop bombing you." :rolleyes:

*snip*
It is illegal.

Arguing legality with a mod = teh lose.

Esteemed fellow delegates, good afternoon.

We in the PDSRA feel that, while this proposal may have potential, it is incomplete, and we cannot support it as it stands.

First, it explicitely does not apply to government agents committing acts of terrorism, a grave oversight. To be perfectly clear, government terrorism does not mean war. It can mean the murder of members of foreign governments, politicians, or other influent members of foreign communities. It can mean the sponsoring, funding or arming of a violent faction within a foreign nation. And it can mean threat of force intended to compel a foreign nation to change its governments or policies, even if that government presents no threat to the international community. Therefore we will not support this proposal, nor would we support any which does not render illegal acts of terrorism by government agents.

Second, this proposal addresses only punitive measures against terrorism. This is a tremendous oversight. Any such proposal should, we believe, advocate solutions to prevent the strengthening and popularity of terrorist movements in the first place. Such solutions might include advocating policies for social equality and justice, or, indeed, policies to outlaw governement-sponsored terrorism which fuels non-governmental terrorism in the countries it targets.

The proposal is therefore incomplete and ineffective. We do not oppose its content, but we believe it needs supplementing in order to become meaningful and workable.

Thank you for your time.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador, PDSRA

Ah, another UN vote. Isn't it beautiful to see the many member nations of this body come together and decide the fate of our world? Anyway, I am in favor of this proposal as of right now but I do have questions. Or mainly just a question...in the process of a civil war, rebelling factions usually seek international support mainly to legitimize their cause. This resolution however disallows this international support for rebelling factions in these civil wars. Without the legitimizing support of international players many rebelling factions might as well just not revolt. Is it right, as people who live for freedom and democracy, is it right for us to not support our freedom fighting brothers?


If this resolution passes you still can support them...

FURTHER DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, 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 state, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.


You'd just have to declare war on those countries' governments before doing so...

I vote AGAINST this resolution.

Repression is NOT the solution to end terrorism.
The only one solution is taking billions dollars to the most rich men of the world, for example (what represent 10 billions for this so rich men ?), to eradicate poverty, because without poverty, there is NO terrorism.
terrorism is the last desesperate hope for a dying country. Give us money, food and water, that's all they need, no more, and they don't send you bombs or whatever, no more terrorism !

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

Ps : I feel this resolution as a "Patriot Act", don't you think ?


Resolution #4, 'UN Taxation Ban'.

Regardless of what the UN says about terror, we will follow our own path. It is necessary for the Theocracy of Salafi Iraqistan in time of war...you wanna stop us...bring it on (DISCLAIMER: SALAFI IRAQISTAN'S PRIMARY INFLUENCES ARE IRAN AND SYRIA!!!)

See my comment to Dundalk Bay...

The Kingdom of Kurmudgia has voted against the Anti-Terrorism Act and urges all freedom-loving nations to join in the nay-vote.

Surely the goal of eradicating terrorism is a noble one, but the international community should be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease.

IN GENERAL the proposed Act is both useless and potentially oppressive. Useless because terrorism is already illegal in all sensible nations and a proper object of police attention. And rogue states who wish to support international terror can always resign from the UN in any case. So the act does nothing useful. It is potentially oppressive because it tends to promote excessive state power and tends against civil liberty.

SPECIFIC POINTS OF CONCERN-

1. DEFINITION - by specifying terrorism as only violence by non-state actors it promotes the model of the state as a monopoly of violence. We would be more comfortable with a ban against all violence against civilians.

2. PURPOSE - the stated purpose of the Act, "to improve security by boosting military and police budgets" represents an untoward interference in the fiscal freedom on nation-states. The Kingdom of Kurmudgia prefers to allocate our resources otherwise.

3. POTENTIAL OF MISUSE - The terms of the act include, among much else, a call for states to take legal action against those who "support" terrorism. (Section 3-F) This broad language can easily be stretched to the harassment of legitimate domestic dissent. Furthermore, the specification of "suppressing...the use of communications technology [by terrorists]" could easily be abused by oppressively minded governments to attack the freedom of expression in the media and internet.

In conclusion, this act is a move toward a global police-state and showed be vigourously opposed by all who value freedom.

Arguing legality with a mod = teh lose.

In reply:

Then again, the arguments weren't intended to question the legality of the resolution as related to game mechanics.

They were RP arguments intended to question the legality of the resolution as related to individual NS nations and NS UN criminal laws.

They were RP arguments intended to question the legality of the resolution as related to individual NS nations and NS UN criminal laws.
That is still a legal challenge, as The Most Glorious Protocols prohibit contradiction.

This will be our final contribution to this debate:

We find that several of the nations that are the most fervent and vociferous in favour of this resolution, are the same ones we have seen in opposition, arguing the case of national sovereignty in numerous previous debates about UN resolutions.

We find this peculiar, to say the least, seeing as how the "Anti-Terrorism Act" openly attempts to dictate a contested legal definition (that of terrorism), as well as impose both judicial and extrajudicial procedures on sovereign nations and their respective legal systems.

With this, we rest our case.

/The Frestonian UN Delegation

Yes, it's almost like those nations are...gods, no, it couldn't be it...judging a resolution on its merits? Ugh! How appalling of them! Naughty naughty smack smack. They should mouth off like vapid blinkered ideologues instead, churning out blanket, knee-jerk reactions without paying a moment's notice to what the proposal actually says. How dare they show such insolence!

This will be our final contribution to this debate:

False premise. Assumes you've already contributed something to the debate.

We find that several of the nations that are the most fervent and vociferous in favour of this resolution, are the same ones we have seen in opposition, arguing the case of national sovereignty in numerous previous debates about UN resolutions.

We find this peculiar, to say the least, seeing as how the "Anti-Terrorism Act" openly attempts to dictate a contested legal definition (that of terrorism), as well as impose both judicial and extrajudicial procedures on sovereign nations and their respective legal systems.

Where does it impose any procedures? Have you even read the proposal?

With this, we rest our case.

Good.

First I would like to say, that I am against terrorism, and against this bill. As many have pointed out, the flip-side is that sometimes "terrorism" is nessecary. I come from the "The Proletariet Coalition" region, a region of basicaly democratic socialists, and we see that sometimes terrorism is needed to stop oppressors. But we allso see that sometimes terrorism is a weapon of oppressors, that fact is that depending on which side your on, you don't view what your doing as terrorism.

Having a UN resolution to regulation this, would on one hand make the governments safer, but not the people, and the UN primary responsilbity has get to be to serve the people of its member states. If not, what are we all doing here?

Having a UN resolution to regulation this, would on one hand make the governments safer, but not the people, and the UN primary responsilbity has get to be to serve the people of its member states. If not, what are we all doing here?

Wrong. The UN most certainly exists to serve the interests of its member states. Nations are members of the UN, not individual people within those nations. For instance, Cluichstan (well, technically, the Cluichstani UN Mission) is a member of the UN. Blibdilploop bin Cluich, the guy who never bathes and walks around Cluichabad proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh, is not, so the UN has no obligation whatsoever to him.

The Democratic Republic of Bluntdonia deeply disaprooves of the proposed socalled "Anti-Terrorism act".
After all, who is the real terrorist?
Those who have a healthy and fun past time like bombmakers, hostagetakers etc. or those who try to forbid such pasttimes?

Bluntdonia has always and will continue to support terrorism both morally and financially.

Terrorism is the only way for small nations like Bluntdonia to make its voice heard and be taken serious.

Death to all who disagree with us!

*snip*

Get lost, troll.

The Grand Imperium of Risban fully supports this Anti-Terrorism Act and views it as a way to stop these criminal terrorists from being able to murder people and do harm to the public. We see it as a vital step towards global security.

Long as the Grand Imperium been plagued by terrorists calling themselves "freedom fighters" and attacking government officials and buildings. They are nothing more than terrorists attempting to cause chaos and dislodge the Imperial government to set up their own anarchy.

To stop such criminals as these in Risban and others throughout the globe, the Grand Imperium pledges its full support to this act. We view all who stand against this act as terrorist consorters who should be removed from any power and influence they might have.

Sincerely,
Lord Kenneth Fowl, Ambassador to the U.N.
Alexander Perkins, High Minister for Foreign Affairs

:sniper: So for example. If one's country (hypohetically mine) was a nation primarily consisting of gunrunners, gray market arms transporters and rednecks with huntin' stores. Would our main national product be considered a support of terrorism? As a nation we strongly oppose freelance military operations within our borders, but being blessed with a massive stockpile of AK-47s, we need SOMETHING to do with them, and selling them to all comers seems like the most sensible choice. Our senatorial body voted in favor of the UN resolution, but we fully intend to continue our selling higest GPD product.

Most Honored General who Advises God,
Caerwyn "(null).exe" Linkletter

As a member nation of the UN, I have watched many a resolution that was debated and approve/defeated on numerous times. However, this is the first resolution that I felt needed a comment on.

As a rule, I find terrorism appalling and would love to take steps to provide a more secure nation and environment for my people. However, creating the equivilent of a police state, and possibly a completely autonomous military or para-military force that could enforce such a vague resoluttion, is not what I am interested in.

In general, the resolution means well. However, this portion raises some serious questions:

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

The key here is 'intend to commit'. Any time an individual or governing body takes it upon themselves to determine 'intent', we have gone from assuming innocence to assuming guilt. While assuming someone is innocent means that the guilty will use that vehicle for exploitation for their personal goals, which we do not deny, it is a central tenet to our nation that people at basically good and should not be treated as a criminal first. If you treat people as a criminal, then they will become the exact thing you are trying to eliminate.

The argument about 'freedom fighters' versus 'terrorists' is a good one, but I feel that the argument about regarding intent and allowing someone or some country to be able to point the finger at someone without proving any guilt goes against the very idea of what the UN is trying to achieve: true human rights.

With that in mind, I plan to veto this resolution and will urge my region's delegate to do the same.

After throughly reading this resolution, Thaipan has voted against the bill.

Case in point:
4. MANDATES that member states shall:
C. 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.

How does a goverment refrain from passively supporting a terrorist group that may not exist. How can I 100% control the people of my country from passively supporting terrorism without making a dictatorship?! Someone may 'passively' finance or support terrorism by paying their utility bill where a terrorist may work, which then pays his paycheck, then funds the terrorist group!

Lastly, all the treats by other UN members should be seen as a form of terrorism. Voting against a poorly worded reolution is not cause for recourse.
1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.
Many of you who have voted for this resolution have already broken it by threatining those who oppose you. It's not opposition i seek, it is clarity. Think before you sit down and type some mindless dribble. Let's not take the 'Bush' standpoint towards terrorism. Instead, let's use peace talks, and military presence. Once those fail, by all means, come in with guns blazing.

*snip*
In general, the resolution means well. However, this portion raises some serious questions:

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

The key here is 'intend to commit'. Any time an individual or governing body takes it upon themselves to determine 'intent', we have gone from assuming innocence to assuming guilt. While assuming someone is innocent means that the guilty will use that vehicle for exploitation for their personal goals, which we do not deny, it is a central tenet to our nation that people at basically good and should not be treated as a criminal first. If you treat people as a criminal, then they will become the exact thing you are trying to eliminate.

The argument about 'freedom fighters' versus 'terrorists' is a good one, but I feel that the argument about regarding intent and allowing someone or some country to be able to point the finger at someone without proving any guilt goes against the very idea of what the UN is trying to achieve: true human rights.

With that in mind, I plan to veto this resolution and will urge my region's delegate to do the same.

We've done no such thing. There are plenty of ways to demonstrate intent without assuming guilt, and it's done all the time. If, for example, a man calls up a hitman and says he'll pay him $10,000 to kill the man's wife, that's conspiracy to commit murder. The criminal offense in this case is planning to commit a crime. Now, a Cluichstani Bureau of Investigation agent has infiltrated a terrorist cell and learns that they plan to blow up the High Sultan's palace, would we have to wait to arrest them until after they've actually done it? Of course not. "Intent" here is not meant as merely thinking about something. There would, of course, need to be some sort of evidence (the level of which would vary depending upon the laws of individual nations).

We urge you to reconsider your position.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

After throughly reading this resolution, Thaipan has voted against the bill.

Case in point:
4. MANDATES that member states shall:
C. 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.

How does a goverment refrain from passively supporting a terrorist group that may not exist. How can I 100% control the people of my country from passively supporting terrorism without making a dictatorship?! Someone may 'passively' finance or support terrorism by paying their utility bill where a terrorist may work, which then pays his paycheck, then funds the terrorist group!

*snip*

Okay, ignoring the silly rant at the end (which, of course, had to reference Bush :rolleyes: ), I feel that this question is actually worth addressing. Passive support can include things like allowing tererorists safe haven or passage through one's country. You're not actively supporting them, no, but you also aren't actively. The point of this proposal is to create greater cooperation among UN member states in combatting terrorism.

And the bit there about payment of a utility bill constituting passive support is one of the most ludicrous stretches I've seen in this thread.

Although I've stated that I had nothing more to say on this matter, I simply have to address this:

False premise. Assumes you've already contributed something to the debate.

So, tell me: Do you honestly believe that insulting and trying to belittle the opinions of those who oppose your precious bill is a good way of garnering support in a debate about it?

Congratulations! You've now managed to make me lose what trace amounts of respect I had left for you and your opinions.

Where does it impose any procedures? Have you even read the proposal?

Haven't you been paying any attention to the debate and the arguments at hand at all?

Allow me to refer you again - for the umpteenth time in this debate - to article 4 B, which you still stubbornly refuse to accept is problematic:

"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."

Mandating the freezing of funds, and thereby the means of livelihood, for suspected persons is imposing judicial procedures (or more correctly, extrajudicial procedures) on sovereign nations.

Many nations that have welfare systems maintain constitutional provisions to ensure that their citizens are entitled by law to receive the means for a subsistence.

If sovereign nations are forced to "freeze without delay" the assets of persons, and have such constitutional provisions, said persons would:

a) Not be allowed to use assets on any bank accounts or similar for their livelihood, since that would be illegal according to this resolution.

b) Not be allowed to retain any wages from any job(s) they may have, since that would be illegal according to this resolution.

c) Not be allowed to receive means for their subsistence through welfare systems, since that would be illegal according to this resolution.

d) Not be allowed to receive donations or even private loans of any kind, since that would be illegal according to this resolution.

Essentially, what article 4 B does is interfering with, and overriding the legal systems of, welfare states that have constitutional provisions to ensure their citizens' subsistence.

So, aside from the humanitarian aspect implied here, whereby persons whose funds are frozen, could effectively be sentenced to death through starvation (since all means for a subsistence would be illegal), by now surely, you must realize how this resolution imposes unwanted judicial procedures on sovereign nations?

Good.

I guess it's a good thing I had already lost what trace amounts of respect I had left for you.

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



I believe that the above clauses in the proposal under consideration are in breach of resolutions already passed by this body, namely;#21 Fair Trial & #47 Definition of Fair Trial.

"All defendants are entitled to a functional defence."

"Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation."

The freezing of funds prior to trial prevents the right to hire private counsel.

Private counsel acting pro-bono would be breaching the 'support' part of the legislation by representing such clients.

No promise of future remuneration would be considered as legally binding as the client would be held 'in extremis'.

A state-supplied counsel would not fulfil the spirit of either legislation and certainly cannot be seen as a suitable alternative for private counsel.

This will be our final contribution to this debate:

*snip*

I thought you were going away...

I believe that the above clauses in the proposal under consideration are in breach of resolutions already passed by this body, namely;#21 Fair Trial & #47 Definition of Fair Trial.

*snip*

It's been queued for weeks. It's legal. The End.

After throughly reading this resolution, Thaipan has voted against the bill.

Case in point:
4. MANDATES that member states shall:
C. 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.

How does a goverment refrain from passively supporting a terrorist group that may not exist. How can I 100% control the people of my country from passively supporting terrorism without making a dictatorship?! Someone may 'passively' finance or support terrorism by paying their utility bill where a terrorist may work, which then pays his paycheck, then funds the terrorist group!

Lastly, all the treats by other UN members should be seen as a form of terrorism. Voting against a poorly worded reolution is not cause for recourse.
1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.
Many of you who have voted for this resolution have already broken it by threatining those who oppose you. It's not opposition i seek, it is clarity. Think before you sit down and type some mindless dribble. Let's not take the 'Bush' standpoint towards terrorism. Instead, let's use peace talks, and military presence. Once those fail, by all means, come in with guns blazing.

Anyone can threaten. What makes a threat credible is a track record of carrying such threats out. I admit I'm new here, but I don't see that that option is a serious problem for anyone.

A government passively supports terrorism when it allows terrorist recruitment, financing, weapons stockpiling, and so on to continue with impunity. A government also passively supports terrorism when it looks the other way while its citizens willfully violate international law, or incite and abet violence in other nations. To cite an example: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allows its leading citizens to fund madrassa schools in the United States of America. The faculty and administrators of those schools are manifestly guilty of inciting murderous intent on the part of their students. One such student--the valedictorian, no less--recently plotted to assassinate the President, and he boldly avowed that he did so out of the inspiration he got at his school. Is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia guilty of passive support of terrorism against the United States of America? Absolutely, undeniably--and, in my view, actionably.

This is precisely the sort of wink and nod--or wink and nudge--that this Resolution will curtail. The Commonwealth of Greater Roanoke therefore strongly urges its passage.

And one thing more: Talk is cheap, and inaction is expensive. You cannot talk "peace" with certain kinds of people--their own religion doesn't even allow it. (See Surah 9:1 and following.) What did Neville Chamberlain accomplish while talking peace with Hitler? Worse than nothing.

Anyone can threaten. What makes a threat credible is a track record of carrying such threats out. I admit I'm new here, but I don't see that that option is a serious problem for anyone.

OOC: Actually, Kenny's got so much of a track record that he's got his own UN card. ;)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/KennyCard-A.jpg

One country's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. While I, personally, do not support nor condone terrorism, I also realize that some disenfranchised and suppressed groups have no other recourse. While I will not participate in any activity that funds violent solutions to political problems (this includes war), I also know that there are times when others may find violence the only solution.

What happens when a neighboring government is practicing a policy of ethnic cleansing by genocide? Should I, by refusing to allow the people being killed any means of fighting back, endorse the policy? I may not consider what they do as a means of survival to be terrorism, but if this resolution passes, by definition it will be. At that point, anything anyone does to help those people becomes support of terrorism.

This is the problem with terrorism. It becomes too easy to define any action by "non-state actors" as terrorism. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the members of our hypothetical ethnic group have no legal recourse within their own government, no time for appeals to the international community, nor any conventional means with which to engage in 'legal warfare'. All they can afford as a means of fighting back is solitary suicide bombers, and the only way to make their point (that THEIR innocent civilians are being killed) is to do the same. If this resolution passes, they automatically become the bad guys, even while they are being slaughtered.

And as to other nations supporting terrorists on my soil, I hope that my actions towards my people and others preclude the need for anyone to become terrorists. I endevour not to push people to that extremity where no other options are open. A better solution worldwide would be for everyone to do the same. So I vote no.

And one thing more: Talk is cheap, and inaction is expensive. You cannot talk "peace" with certain kinds of people--their own religion doesn't even allow it. (See Surah 9:1 and following.)
OOC: Well, this type of talk is very cheap indeed. Taking the Koran's every word literally is about as intelligent as, ooh, taking the Bible's every word literally.

whatever has happened to diplomacy? we rush to buy guns and bombs while diplomacy is free. nations in our modern age flourish the most without the burden a military weighs down. money should be spent on defence, yes, but there would be no reason for an offense if everyone was on their defense.

Again,

The MAIN problem of this resolution seems to be that some people want to be able to support freedom fighters, which is a valid concern.

But I think what most people are scared of, are terrorists that target innocent civilians. I think we could ALL agree that whether it's terrorists or freedom fighters targeting civilians, it is wrong, correct?

I think we should limit this bill to prevent anyone from harming large numbers of mass combatants in the name of a political, religious, or sociological reason, and prevent people from supporting those who engage in these actions.

This would still allow freedom fighters the right to rebel, and yet, prevent terrorists from targeting buildings that contain innocents.

whatever has happened to diplomacy? we rush to buy guns and bombs while diplomacy is free. nations in our modern age flourish the most without the burden a military weighs down. money should be spent on defence, yes, but there would be no reason for an offense if everyone was on their defense.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/spongebobweed9gb.jpg

*snip*

This would still allow freedom fighters the right to rebel, and yet, prevent terrorists from targeting buildings that contain innocents.

Again,

This proposal doesn't speak at all to people rebelling against their government. All it does it prevent, say, Cluichstan from funding terrorist activities in Kiften. That doesn't mean you might not eventually end up with rebels on your hands, but if you do, I won't be able to give them weapons, money, or any other support.

ABSOLUTELY NO! Basically, war on terrorism is good thing, but what happens when wrong people get to decide who is a terrorist. I dont want this to happen, for this is too potential tool for possible extremist elements in various goverments

Kurmudgia

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
Anti-Terrorism Act a move towards Global Police State
The Kingdom of Kurmudgia has voted against the Anti-Terrorism Act and urges all freedom-loving nations to join in the nay-vote.

Surely the goal of eradicating terrorism is a noble one, but the international community should be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease.

IN GENERAL the proposed Act is both useless and potentially oppressive. Useless because terrorism is already illegal in all sensible nations and a proper object of police attention. And rogue states who wish to support international terror can always resign from the UN in any case. So the act does nothing useful. It is potentially oppressive because it tends to promote excessive state power and tends against civil liberty.


Most worthy peers, this is most surely true, but also true of all UN resolutions. In my estimation, there is not one possible proposition which could come before the Esteemed UN without this arguement being made. Yes states can withdraw from the UN, and this would surely exempt them from its rulings, but this is not a valid objection to legislation, unless yuo want to abolish all UN legislative power.


SPECIFIC POINTS OF CONCERN-

1. DEFINITION - by specifying terrorism as only violence by non-state actors it promotes the model of the state as a monopoly of violence. We would be more comfortable with a ban against all violence against civilians.

2. PURPOSE - the stated purpose of the Act, "to improve security by boosting military and police budgets" represents an untoward interference in the fiscal freedom on nation-states. The Kingdom of Kurmudgia prefers to allocate our resources otherwise.

3. POTENTIAL OF MISUSE - The terms of the act include, among much else, a call for states to take legal action against those who "support" terrorism. (Section 3-F) This broad language can easily be stretched to the harassment of legitimate domestic dissent. Furthermore, the specification of "suppressing...the use of communications technology [by terrorists]" could easily be abused by oppressively minded governments to attack the freedom of expression in the media and internet.

In conclusion, this act is a move toward a global police-state and showed be vigourously opposed by all who value freedom.


Honourable brother in thought, I commend your eloquence. These too are my objections. Take heart, the world will come nigh unto its senses.

ABSOLUTELY NO! Basically, war on terrorism is good thing, but what happens when wrong people get to decide who is a terrorist. I dont want this to happen, for this is too potential tool for possible extremist elements in various goverments

Nobody will be getting to decide who is a terrorist. That determination is made based on the definition in the proposal, which I suggest you read.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

completely agree

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

completely agree

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

OOC: Brilliant. Gruenberg was being sarcastic, y'know.

OOC: Well, this type of talk is very cheap indeed. Taking the Koran's every word literally is about as intelligent as, ooh, taking the Bible's every word literally.

OOC: But the proportion of Muslims who do take the Koran literally themselves seems greatly to exceed the proportion of Christians who do likewise with the Bible...

Get lost, troll.

It is sad that you dont understand humour.
Bluntdonia is a psycotic dictatorship and that is what is so great about it.
My statement is not one that is made to destroy the debate but made according to the principles of what a completely insane dictatorship might say.

But now you leave me no choice but to send my troops marching against Cluichstan (aka the big satan, aka arch-enemy of Bluntdonia, aka unworthy scum) ;)

Bluntdonia :fluffle: terrorism

OOC: But the proportion of Muslims who do take the Koran literally themselves seems greatly to exceed the proportion of Christians who do likewise with the Bible...

OOC: You've never been to the Southern US... :p

OOC: Well, this type of talk is very cheap indeed. Taking the Koran's every word literally is about as intelligent as, ooh, taking the Bible's every word literally.
We don't have the problem with taking the Koran's every word literally. The terrorists themselves do that. The Koran specifically tells them that they will lie on brocaded couches and be serviced with dark-eyed virgins (the Hadith gives the number of them--seventy or seventy-two; accounts differ) if they kill non-believers in advancement of the Muslim faith. The Koran also tells its readers that Jews are descended from pigs and monkeys.

More to the point: the Koran endorses terrorism. The Koran also endorses bad-faith negotiation with anyone who isn't a Muslim.

Further to the point: you're addressing the wrong person when you say that "taking the Koran literally is not an intelligent thing to do"--or words to that effect. You should address that to Muslim believers. (Actually, I wouldn't advise it, not if you want to keep your head fastened.)

I mention Muslims, by the way, because Muslims are the ones flying airplanes into buildings, cutting people's heads off for making films they don't like, and burning embassies and gunning down clerics of other religions just because someone draws a cartoon of the founder of their religion. (That the cartoons in questions--which I have viewed--are not entirely flattering to Muhammad or to Islam isn't even the issue. The issue is the very creation of the cartoon.)

Also: I get a little tired of this "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" stuff. As the author of the resolution pointed out, this resolution gives a good definition of a terrorist--under which, for example, the US Continental Army would not have earned that dubious distinction.

OOC: You've never been to the Southern US... :p


Oh, boy.....:rolleyes:

Anyway

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad:


This is called state actor terrorism.;)