NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, let's have at it. Word of warning: the stupid "freedom fighter" argument is going to be ignored by me. If you want to spew that garbage, don't expect me to engage you in a rational debate, because you've already proven yourself incapable of one.

UN Counterterrorism Initiative

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that the deliberate killing and maiming of innocent civilians by terrorists is a despicable and heinous crime;

CONVINCED that terrorism that is conducted, instigated, supported or aided across national borders is a valid and critical concern of the international community;

FURTHER CONVINCED that concerted international action is required to stem this menace, and;

BELIEVING that terrorism conducted by or on behalf of recognized governments is a complex issue best addressed by separate legislation related to the laws of war,

The United Nations

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;

2. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a civilian as a person who is (1) not a member of a military, paramilitary or law-enforcement organization of a nation, or (2) a member of such an organization, but not under arms or performing military duties or functions;

3. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, international terrorism as terrorism that is conducted, instigated, aided, or abetted by persons or groups from outside the borders of the nation in which it takes place;

4. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism;

5. DECLARES that every state has a duty to refrain from organizing, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territory which further such acts.

6. MANDATES that all member states shall:

A. Criminalize and suppress the financing, solicitation of, planning, preparation for, aiding, and perpetration of international terrorism;

B. Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably 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 their direction in this regard. Nations shall develop legal mechanisms to ensure that proper due process is provided in such cases where appropriate, but shall ensure that action is taken quickly enough to prevent removal of liquid assets from their jurisdictions.

C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons participating in international terrorism;

D. Deny, to the best of their ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or engage in international terrorism;

E. Afford one another the greatest practicable assistance in connection with criminal investigations and legal proceedings related to international terrorism.

7. URGES all member states to cooperate in suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against it though administrative and judicial means and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding the actions and movements of international terrorists, the use of forged or falsified travel documents, the use of communications technologies by international terrorists, and traffic in arms, explosives, or other sensitive materials – particularly weapons of mass destruction – by international terrorists.

8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc.

Co-authored by Ausserland


FAQ for Counterterrorism Initiative proposal
Originally posted by Hirota (edited and amended by Cluichstan)

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

This document will be updated as neccessary.

1. Defining international terrorism (“but they are freedom fighters!”)
This is normally the first issue raised by member states. I personally recognise there are going to be situations when member states would sympathise with a neighbouring group of “freedom fighters” in a different country fighting against a brutal regime. But, ultimately, it is not their title or their justifications which should be considered. It is firmly believed that actions should be judged above that of names or motivations.

The author’s intentions are threefold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Civil Liberties
This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act. Moreover, civil liberties that are most often mentioned in regard to this proposal are already protected by UN resolutions, such as "Due Process."

As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

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

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

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

6. I don’t like the proposal.
Okay, well, tell us why, and better still, tell us what you’d do to improve it. If we agree, we can change the proposal up until it is submitted. After it is submitted, though, comments and suggestions would still be appreciated so that we might modify the proposal for a future submission should it fail to reach quorum this time around.

For an example of state-sponsored international terrorism in NS, click here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Secular_Resistance).

That's precisely the sort of thing this proposal is attempting to address.

This proposal is sponsored by UN DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON).

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do.

If I read your draft correctly a UN member could support a cross-border guerrilla movement that targetted active members of the military/police, but did not explicitly target civilians. Is this your intention? What about collateral damage? My reading of the draft would allow civilian casualties if the target was non-civilian, for example blowing up a police station. Is this your intention?

I am not at all criticizing the draft, just trying to be clear about what acts it covers.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Not We Regional Delegate

As always, my girls stand poised to liberate any and all regimes we deem a threat to global security. And that includes opponents of this legislation. Be on notice that we will be assessing the statements proferred during this discussion to determine to nature of the relevant regimes the speakers represent. If we find you to be terror supporters or terror apologists, then may God have mercy on your souls. We surely won't.

And don't accuse us of "state-sponsored terror," either. Stripper Commandos are not terrorists, sillies; they're freedom fighters! Just ask Reuters!

~Jack Riley
Chief of Saber-rattling and Lobbing Unwarranted Threats
The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

Finally a draft with some substance. The Palentine heartedly endorses this proposal, and thanks the representatives from Cluichstan, Ausserland, and fellow UN Defcon members for continuing where this failed before. The Palentine's Mick Foley Testicular Fortitude Award(TM) goes out to yunz guys.
Huzzah! and Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I am sure that my colleagues will agree with me that this is a very well-written resolution, and I would be delighted to see this pass.

If I read your draft correctly a UN member could support a cross-border guerrilla movement that targetted active members of the military/police, but did not explicitly target civilians. Is this your intention? What about collateral damage? My reading of the draft would allow civilian casualties if the target was non-civilian, for example blowing up a police station. Is this your intention?
One could argue that, by attacking a target where there is a chance of collateral damage, and if it is clear that the purpose of the attack was to create collateral damage or that the terrorists and nation funding them knew that there would be collateral damage (by bombing a military-owned nuclear power plant, for example) it is still considered terrorism.

Our Jevian freedom fighters stand in full support of this proposal.

I am sure that my colleagues will agree with me that this is a very well-written resolution, and I would be delighted to see this pass.


One could argue that, by attacking a target where there is a chance of collateral damage, and if it is clear that the purpose of the attack was to create collateral damage or that the terrorists and nation funding them knew that there would be collateral damage (by bombing a military-owned nuclear power plant, for example) it is still considered terrorism.

Yahtzee!

Yahtzee!

Is this exclamation on the part of the draft's author an expression of support for the quoted explaination, or is it just that the Cluichstani representative was playing Yahtzee while posting?

At any rate, I would be grateful for a more fulsome statement on my questions from the author.

Regards,
vK

Is this exclamation on the part of the draft's author an expression of support for the quoted explaination, or is it just that the Cluichstani representative was playing Yahtzee while posting?

At any rate, I would be grateful for a more fulsome statement on my questions from the author.

Regards,
vK

It was meant to indicate that the representative of Caratia had it spot on.

And why would you want an insincere statement from me?

OOC: Poll added.

It was meant to indicate that the representative of Caratia had it spot on.

Well, the Caratian representative's explaination leads to troubling implications for national armed conflicts which generally involve exactly the sort of collateral casualties as described. Do you wish to open that can of worms or would you prefer that your proposal be a bit more restrictive in its definition of targetting civilians?

And why would you want an insincere statement from me?

That is an embarrassing misuse of language, my apologies. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I. Montoya

On Edit and OOC: So why aren't the quotes working if I cut and paste the way they do from the link?

Further Edit: Duh, yeah missed the /

I am in agreement with this proposal against terrorism.

Reidalia, I think you missed out a / in the unquote part of the manual quoting.

Well, the Caratian representative's explaination leads to troubling implications for national armed conflicts which generally involve exactly the sort of collateral casualties as described. Do you wish to open that can of worms or would you prefer that your proposal be a bit more restrictive in its definition of targetting civilians?

Under the assumption (and correct me if I am mistaken) that you are referring to military acts as national armed conflicts, then I will attempt to assuage any concerns regarding that issue.

As this resolutions explicitly targets terrorists and terrorist activities, using the definitions provided, national military actions (agents of the state, if you will) are not affected by this proposal. Only those actions taken by non-government sanctioned groups.

Due to issues in the continuing problems with the Nolak Clans and the more than valuable data that has been provided by former International Terrorist Kane Angel, the Forgotten Territories is extremely hesitant about this proposal. Since his decision to leave the Nolak Clans, he has stopped dozens of attacks and been able to provide extraordinary data regarding the technological capabilities of Nolak, the organizational structure, the militant capacity, and many other areas. He continues to be an excellent intelligence resource. Further, Prime Minister Tristan Angel of Angel Fire, one of the most prominant powers within the region and a full member of the Forgotten Territories, is also a former International Terrorist. The clauses in this resolution are most disconcerting as it would effectively require us to freeze all assets and possibly even the assets of Angel Fire itself, refuse them the ability to operate in any member nation within the region to further intelligence capabilities, regional planning, intra-regional agreements, intra-regional laws, and various other considerations. There is also a question of the possibility that our region may be limited in its ability to provide its constitutional requirement of health care service to the citizens of Angel Fire. With so many implications, the Forgotten Territories tentatively opposes this proposal. If it is clear our findings are incorrect or the proposal is modified to accomodate these issues, we may change our position at a later date.

Further, Prime Minister Tristan Angel of Angel Fire, one of the most prominant powers within the region and a full member of the Forgotten Territories, is also a former International Terrorist. The clauses in this resolution are most disconcerting as it would effectively require us to freeze all assets and possibly even the assets of Angel Fire itself, refuse them the ability to operate in any member nation within the region to further intelligence capabilities, regional planning, intra-regional agreements, intra-regional laws, and various other considerations. There is also a question of the possibility that our region may be limited in its ability to provide its constitutional requirement of health care service to the citizens of Angel Fire.It doesn't require you to do anything; you are not a member of the United Nations, first off. Second off, where in Sam-glaven do you get the idea that you have to freeze the assets and deny certain easements to an entire nation, just because its leader used to be a terrorist?

It doesn't require you to do anything; you are not a member of the United Nations, first off.

OOC: I treat Forgottenlands as a UN member since logistics makes it impossible to have both him and Forgottenlands UN in

Second off, where in Sam-glaven do you get the idea that you have to freeze the assets and deny certain easements to an entire nation, just because its leader used to be a terrorist?

Because when you freeze the assets of a terrorist/terrorist group, you are removing all potential sources of revenue. That does include any nations they siphon money out of. (OOC: why do you think the various countries refuse to allow Hamas to touch aide money - even though they are trying to get money directly to the Palestinean people) Certainly, we'd have to freeze their personal accounts making it so that if they wanted to be paid, they'd have to get it directly from the payer without going through any banks.

And then there's always this line

B. Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably 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 their direction in this regard. Nations shall develop legal mechanisms to ensure that proper due process is provided in such cases where appropriate, but shall ensure that action is taken quickly enough to prevent removal of liquid assets from their jurisdictions.

Because when you freeze the assets of a terrorist/terrorist group, you are removing all potential sources of revenue. That does include any nations they siphon money out of. (OOC: why do you think the various countries refuse to allow Hamas to touch aide money - even though they are trying to get money directly to the Palestinean people) Certainly, we'd have to freeze their personal accounts making it so that if they wanted to be paid, they'd have to get it directly from the payer without going through any banks.

And then there's always this lineB. Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably 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 their direction in this regard.It doesn't say who determines whether someone commits, or intends to commit, etc., terrorist acts, so that designation would have to be left up to individual nations. So if you are certain Tristan is no longer committing acts of terror (after all she only used to be a terrorist), or using Angel Fire forces in that regard, then she's pretty much off the hook, isn't she?

The problem is she's already committed a terrorist attack - both of them have - which is recognized by our nation and been admitted publicly by her. Further, the definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack is fairly clear and it is rather important to the bibliographies of a number of high-ranking members that one of the many terrorist attacks (by the definition in this resolution) committed by Kane Angel is that he abducted then-civilian Tristan Angel.

Or are we saying that all terrorist attacks before this resolution are immune to these regulations?

Regardless of whether it is or isn't, the paths taken by each of Kane and Tristan Angel and could be replicated by further terrorists - perhaps to the point of preventing terrorist attacks or even collapsing terrorist groups is are possibilities not sufficiently considered by this proposal. The proposal makes no time limit on how long after one's conducted an attack that their accounts should remain frozen - and quite justly so. With no clauses permitting a terrorist to make up for his or her crimes, no clauses allowing them to plea bargain with authorities (to which I recall the representative from either Omigodtheykilledkenny or Cluichstan - my memory is a bit hazy - objecting to on a recent proposal regarding murder) and no ability for a terrorist to be considered redeemed, this proposal condemns all terrorists to forever being not permitted assets nor being able to forge a new and productive life.

Regardless of whether it is or isn't, the paths taken by each of Kane and Tristan Angel and could be replicated by further terrorists - perhaps to the point of preventing terrorist attacks or even collapsing terrorist groups is are possibilities not sufficiently considered by this proposal. The proposal makes no time limit on how long after one's conducted an attack that their accounts should remain frozen - and quite justly so. With no clauses permitting a terrorist to make up for his or her crimes, no clauses allowing them to plea bargain with authorities (to which I recall the representative from either Omigodtheykilledkenny or Cluichstan - my memory is a bit hazy - objecting to on a recent proposal regarding murder) and no ability for a terrorist to be considered redeemed, this proposal condemns all terrorists to forever being not permitted assets nor being able to forge a new and productive life.

Since the proposal requires that assets be frozen by legal action with proper consideration of due process, it would seem only logical to understand that they could be released by the same mechanism. The notion that somehow the proposal requires assets to be frozen in perpetuity is not supported by the text. And no, the proposal does not set a time limit on the sequestration of the assets. That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis -- the determining factor being convincing evidence that the assets would not be used to support international terrorism.

And where in the proposal does it prohibit plea-bargaining?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

While possibly the issue of Due Process can be argued to overrule the matters, I note that the proposal makes no attempts to differentiate between funds with reasonable concern to be committed to terrorist objectives and funds that have no relation whatsoever. It specifies funds attached to a person rather than a purpose.

Further, it states that it is attached to anyone who commits an act of terrorism - but makes no attempt of considering that after one has committed an act of terrorism, one may choose to end their terrorist career. While, perhaps, they should be charged, it gives no ability to escape the binds of the other components of the resolution. As such, 6 B and D haunt any ex-terrorist for the rest of their lives and do not allow any ability for the person to plea-bargain on such an area. Certainly, 6 A and E have room to bargain, but incarceration seems a small punishment compared to inability to live within a member nation and inability to hold an unfrozen account. Once a person has been convicted of International Terrorism, the evidence is irrefutable, even if the vast majority of nations are unlikely to actually pursue it. I would rather protect a person by the letter of the law rather than by common sense - some do not prefer common sense believing the letter of the law can not be revoked from the bench and should always be persued and certainly, it is not impossible to imagine a law-enforcement agent who would hold a grudge and pace such a person continually. There is, without question, good argument for not pushing any time limit on how long a bank account should be frozen or that a terrorist should remain a terrorist, however this resolution offers not ability to be redeemed after one has been a terrorist. It treats (inadvertantly, I believe) such people with the concept of "once a terrorist, always a terrorist".

While possibly the issue of Due Process can be argued to overrule the matters, I note that the proposal makes no attempts to differentiate between funds with reasonable concern to be committed to terrorist objectives and funds that have no relation whatsoever. It specifies funds attached to a person rather than a purpose.

A person has three large bank accounts. There is evidence to prove he is funding terrorists in another country, taking the money from account #1. Would the representative of Forgottenlands have us freeze only the funds in account #1, leaving him free to send money from the other two? If a person is funding international terrorism, how are we to discern which of that person's assets "have no relation whatsoever"?

Further, it states that it is attached to anyone who commits an act of terrorism - but makes no attempt of considering that after one has committed an act of terrorism, one may choose to end their terrorist career. While, perhaps, they should be charged, it gives no ability to escape the binds of the other components of the resolution. As such, 6 B and D haunt any ex-terrorist for the rest of their lives and do not allow any ability for the person to plea-bargain on such an area. Certainly, 6 A and E have room to bargain, but incarceration seems a small punishment compared to inability to live within a member nation and inability to hold an unfrozen account. Once a person has been convicted of International Terrorism, the evidence is irrefutable, even if the vast majority of nations are unlikely to actually pursue it. I would rather protect a person by the letter of the law rather than by common sense - some do not prefer common sense believing the letter of the law can not be revoked from the bench and should always be persued and certainly, it is not impossible to imagine a law-enforcement agent who would hold a grudge and pace such a person continually. There is, without question, good argument for not pushing any time limit on how long a bank account should be frozen or that a terrorist should remain a terrorist, however this resolution offers not ability to be redeemed after one has been a terrorist. It treats (inadvertantly, I believe) such people with the concept of "once a terrorist, always a terrorist".

Once again, the representative of Forgottenlands reads into the proposal what is clearly not there. There is no requirement that frozen funds remain frozen forever. There is no requirement in 6d to deny residence to a person who no longer is participating in international terrorism. And certainly, police harrassment is a possibility. It is a possibility with or without this proposal. The mention of it is not germane to the subject and simply beclouds the issue.

We agree that the unambiguous letter of the law is preferable to having to apply common sense to interpret it. But we don't think common sense should be thrown out the window when analyzing legislation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Under the assumption (and correct me if I am mistaken) that you are referring to military acts as national armed conflicts, then I will attempt to assuage any concerns regarding that issue.

As this resolutions explicitly targets terrorists and terrorist activities, using the definitions provided, national military actions (agents of the state, if you will) are not affected by this proposal. Only those actions taken by non-government sanctioned groups.

Well, it seems people are doing an excellent job of answering questions for me. The representative of Kivisto is correct. This proposal would not have any effect on national military actions, seeking to address only those taken by non-state actors.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Due to issues in the continuing problems with the Nolak Clans and the more than valuable data that has been provided by former International Terrorist Kane Angel, the Forgotten Territories is extremely hesitant about this proposal. Since his decision to leave the Nolak Clans, he has stopped dozens of attacks and been able to provide extraordinary data regarding the technological capabilities of Nolak, the organizational structure, the militant capacity, and many other areas. He continues to be an excellent intelligence resource. Further, Prime Minister Tristan Angel of Angel Fire, one of the most prominant powers within the region and a full member of the Forgotten Territories, is also a former International Terrorist. The clauses in this resolution are most disconcerting as it would effectively require us to freeze all assets and possibly even the assets of Angel Fire itself, refuse them the ability to operate in any member nation within the region to further intelligence capabilities, regional planning, intra-regional agreements, intra-regional laws, and various other considerations. There is also a question of the possibility that our region may be limited in its ability to provide its constitutional requirement of health care service to the citizens of Angel Fire. With so many implications, the Forgotten Territories tentatively opposes this proposal. If it is clear our findings are incorrect or the proposal is modified to accomodate these issues, we may change our position at a later date.

Are you insane?

Well, at least you're open to changing your position...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

/me votes option #4.

Oh shit... did I say that out loud?!

Regardless of whether it is or isn't, the paths taken by each of Kane and Tristan Angel and could be replicated by further terrorists - perhaps to the point of preventing terrorist attacks or even collapsing terrorist groups is are possibilities not sufficiently considered by this proposal. The proposal makes no time limit on how long after one's conducted an attack that their accounts should remain frozen - and quite justly so. With no clauses permitting a terrorist to make up for his or her crimes, no clauses allowing them to plea bargain with authorities (to which I recall the representative from either Omigodtheykilledkenny or Cluichstan - my memory is a bit hazy - objecting to on a recent proposal regarding murder) and no ability for a terrorist to be considered redeemed, this proposal condemns all terrorists to forever being not permitted assets nor being able to forge a new and productive life.

I brought up the plea bargain in that "debate." Ambassador Ahlmann is correct in noting the reference in this proposal to due process. Plea bargaining would indeed be part of that. It would also cover the duration of which assets could be frozen. Of course, how due process operates exactly is up to individual nations. Forgottenlands may decide to freeze assets for a month, for instance, while a suspect is investigated, while Cluichstan may choose to keep assets frozen for a year or more.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I do the same thing with Cluichstan and the Cluichstani UN Mission. I only use the latter for game mechanics: submitting proposals, voting on proposals, etc. For purposes of roleplay, I act as though Cluichstan is still in the UN (and it would still be in the UN had I not submitted the Midget Protection Act :( ).

/me votes option #4.

Oh shit... did I say that out loud?!

OOC: Kinda figured you would. :p

A person has three large bank accounts. There is evidence to prove he is funding terrorists in another country, taking the money from account #1. Would the representative of Forgottenlands have us freeze only the funds in account #1, leaving him free to send money from the other two? If a person is funding international terrorism, how are we to discern which of that person's assets "have no relation whatsoever"?

I do not disagree. I'm merely playing off what you yourself stated.

That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis -- the determining factor being convincing evidence that the assets would not be used to support international terrorism.

Once again, the representative of Forgottenlands reads into the proposal what is clearly not there. There is no requirement that frozen funds remain frozen forever. There is no requirement in 6d to deny residence to a person who no longer is participating in international terrorism.

There is no part of the text that allows one who no longer participates in International Terrorism but once did to be treated ANY different from an individual who continues to participate openly in International Terrorism

And certainly, police harrassment is a possibility. It is a possibility with or without this proposal. The mention of it is not germane to the subject and simply beclouds the issue.

Fine

We agree that the unambiguous letter of the law is preferable to having to apply common sense to interpret it. But we don't think common sense should be thrown out the window when analyzing legislation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The letter of the law is what judges are normally supposed to rule on. Yes, there is argument that Common Sense should be applied, but it is not in the power of any government to undermine a judiciary because they chose to follow the letter of the law over common sense. The letter of the law for this resolution requires that all assets be frozen of anyone who has ever committed or conspired to commit a terrorist attack. It makes no distinction between those who have shrugged off their disgraceful past and those who remain active participants.

.


Originally Posted by Ausserland
A person has three large bank accounts. There is evidence to prove he is funding terrorists in another country, taking the money from account #1. Would the representative of Forgottenlands have us freeze only the funds in account #1, leaving him free to send money from the other two? If a person is funding international terrorism, how are we to discern which of that person's assets "have no relation whatsoever"?

I do not disagree. I'm merely playing off what you yourself stated

Originally Posted by You, earlier
That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis -- the determining factor being convincing evidence that the assets would not be used to support international terrorism.


Our earlier comment referred to the totality of assets possessed by an individual and the perceived intent of that individual to use those funds. The instant response was in reply to your thoroughly unrealistic suggestion that the authorities should, by some unfathomable means, be able to "differentiate between funds with reasonable concern to be committed to terrorist objectives and funds that have no relation whatsoever."



Once again, the representative of Forgottenlands reads into the proposal what is clearly not there. There is no requirement that frozen funds remain frozen forever. There is no requirement in 6d to deny residence to a person who no longer is participating in international terrorism.

There is no part of the text that allows one who no longer participates in International Terrorism but once did to be treated ANY different from an individual who continues to participate openly in International Terrorism


Again, the representative of Forgottenlands misstates the provisions of the proposal. We suggest that the Representative of Forgottenlands might do well to re-read the proposal while paying proper attention to the tenses of the verbs used and an understanding that, when an act is criminalized, the scope of the law does not extend to acts committed before the law came into force. As an eample, the provision concerning freezing of assets reads, in part: "Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts...." It requires freezing of assets only when the activity is ongoing subsequent to the passage of the resolution. As much as the representative of Forgottenlands might try to twist the language, it does not read: "have committed," "once committed," or used to commit but doesn't anymore."



And certainly, police harrassment is a possibility. It is a possibility with or without this proposal. The mention of it is not germane to the subject and simply beclouds the issue.

Fine





We agree that the unambiguous letter of the law is preferable to having to apply common sense to interpret it. But we don't think common sense should be thrown out the window when analyzing legislation.


The letter of the law is what judges are normally supposed to rule on. Yes, there is argument that Common Sense should be applied, but it is not in the power of any government to undermine a judiciary because they chose to follow the letter of the law over common sense. The letter of the law for this resolution requires that all assets be frozen of anyone who has ever committed or conspired to commit a terrorist attack. It makes no distinction between those who have shrugged off their disgraceful past and those who remain active participants.

The letter of the law of the resolution does absolutely no such thing. Period. It criminalizes actions taken in the present, freezes assets of those acting in the present, and requires denial of safe haven to those acting in the present. Unless the government of Forgottenlands is given to ex post facto application of law, its pet ex-terrorists would be unaffected by the proposal unless they engaged in support of terrorism in the present.

And our comment promoting the use of common sense was directed at discussion of proposals in this forum, not judicial interpretation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We ask the representative of Ausserland why it is that he goes out of his way to address concepts of this law not being applied to events that happen before it is passed. No argument I have given since choosing to drop my line of concern regarding the Angel family would fail to apply to someone who committed a terrorist attack 5 days after this law passed, and then 5 years later, repented. Yes, the tenses used are indeed present tense. However, are you then suggesting that nations only have to freeze the accounts the second a strike occurs - an obvious impossibility due to the due process requirement (an obvious exception being known process of planning further strikes or conspiring, beforehand, to commit such attacks)? Obviously, the wording - to have any true effect - must apply to the past - not the past as in before the law is passed but the past of before the law is being executed. Yet no limitation is placed upon this past - with good reason. The requirement is that one must commit or conspire to commit a terrorist attack, but there is no indication that such a black mark could be removed. There is no qualification of such.

In the spirit of finding loopholes...

Since the proposal doesn't give any indication of how long the assets must be frozen, then it's left up to the nation. You could freeze the assets for 15 seconds or 15 million years.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We ask the representative of Ausserland why it is that he goes out of his way to address concepts of this law not being applied to events that happen before it is passed. No argument I have given since choosing to drop my line of concern regarding the Angel family would fail to apply to someone who committed a terrorist attack 5 days after this law passed, and then 5 years later, repented. Yes, the tenses used are indeed present tense. However, are you then suggesting that nations only have to freeze the accounts the second a strike occurs - an obvious impossibility due to the due process requirement (an obvious exception being known process of planning further strikes or conspiring, beforehand, to commit such attacks)? Obviously, the wording - to have any true effect - must apply to the past - not the past as in before the law is passed but the past of before the law is being executed. Yet no limitation is placed upon this past - with good reason. The requirement is that one must commit or conspire to commit a terrorist attack, but there is no indication that such a black mark could be removed. There is no qualification of such.

Perhaps we continued to address that issue because you continue to make false statements such as this, which we quote from your post immediately preceding our response:

The letter of the law for this resolution requires that all assets be frozen of anyone who has ever committed or conspired to commit a terrorist attack. It makes no distinction between those who have shrugged off their disgraceful past and those who remain active participants.[Emphasis added.]

We're completely befuddled by the convoluted passage about "second strike." Of course, all judicial actions are based on evidece of what has taken place and is now taking place. That's common sense again. And we don't know what sort of qualification the representative wants. If there is sufficient evidence that the individual is or will support international terrorism, the assets are to be frozen. If the individual has committed an illegal act, he can be called to account before the law. Murder is not excused because the perpetrator later repents. Neither should international terrorism or the support of it. Of course, repentence can be taken into account in sentencing and post-sentencing decisions. But the proposal doesn't prohibit that, does it? Or is the representative of Forgottenlands going to find some way to read that into it, too?

(On a personal note, I would appreciate it if the Representative would do me the courtesy of not referring to me as "he." It's quite bad enough to be stuck here while my more senior colleagues take off for the weekend.)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

In the spirit of finding loopholes...

Since the proposal doesn't give any indication of how long the assets must be frozen, then it's left up to the nation. You could freeze the assets for 15 seconds or 15 million years.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Absolutely correct. The intent is, of course, that the assets be frozen long enough to prevent them being used to support the terrorism. And the proposal does not set any artificial time limits or attempt to micromanage national judiciaries in their decisions about that.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Tentatively for and we liked point 8.

We ask the representative of Ausserland why it is that he goes out of his way to address concepts of this law not being applied to events that happen before it is passed. No argument I have given since choosing to drop my line of concern regarding the Angel family would fail to apply to someone who committed a terrorist attack 5 days after this law passed, and then 5 years later, repented. Yes, the tenses used are indeed present tense. However, are you then suggesting that nations only have to freeze the accounts the second a strike occurs - an obvious impossibility due to the due process requirement (an obvious exception being known process of planning further strikes or conspiring, beforehand, to commit such attacks)? Obviously, the wording - to have any true effect - must apply to the past - not the past as in before the law is passed but the past of before the law is being executed. Yet no limitation is placed upon this past - with good reason. The requirement is that one must commit or conspire to commit a terrorist attack, but there is no indication that such a black mark could be removed. There is no qualification of such.

I am leery about jumping into the middle of this, but here goes.....

It's been a long time since first year law, but one of the few things I remember went kinda like this:

Rule Of Law: states that, amongst other things, for any law to be just and truly enforceable, it cannot be retroactive. If you live somewhere where smoking dope has just been made illegal, they cannot arrest you for smoking dope before the law came into effect.

I hope that that would cover any "black mark" that may exist from past deeds that may have occured before this proposal passes into law. As they are no longer -shall we say- politically active in such a manner, they should have nothing to fear.

ooc: *cough* as one taking an exam in Public and Constitution Law tomorrow, yes the sovereign power can do whatever it likes.
Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate 1965 <- concluded Govt. owed compensation for destruction of buildings under the War prerogative. They simply passed "the War Damages Act 1965, which retrospectively provided that lawful exrecise of the war prerogative did not give rise to compensation."

Rule Of Law: states that, amongst other things, for any law to be just and truly enforceable, it cannot be retroactive. If you live somewhere where smoking dope has just been made illegal, they cannot arrest you for smoking dope before the law came into effect.

Would you support a UN resolution banning the use of retrospective legislation in member-nations? I happen to have one on the drafting-board...

Tentatively for and we liked point 8.

I rather liked that myself. ;)

I've also added this to the original post in this thread.

FAQ for Counterterrorism Initiative proposal
Originally posted by Hirota (edited and amended by Cluichstan)

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

This document will be updated as neccessary.

1. Defining international terrorism (“but they are freedom fighters!”)
This is normally the first issue raised by member states. I personally recognise there are going to be situations when member states would sympathise with a neighbouring group of “freedom fighters” in a different country fighting against a brutal regime. But, ultimately, it is not their title or their justifications which should be considered. It is firmly believed that actions should be judged above that of names or motivations.

The author’s intentions are threefold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Civil Liberties
This proposal does not affect civil liberties within your nation. Normal people have no reason to consider themselves concerned as the government cannot detain without charge nor does the populace lose any other civil liberties.
This proposal only comes into effect when an organisation commits or plans to commit an act of international terrorism. Their civil liberties are going to be impacted, as it’s a criminal act. Moreover, civil liberties that are most often mentioned in regard to this proposal are already protected by UN resolutions, such as "Due Process."

As stated earlier, domestic terrorism is unaffected, and member states do whatever they want with that issue.

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

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

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

6. I don’t like the proposal.
Okay, well, tell us why, and better still, tell us what you’d do to improve it. If we agree, we can change the proposal up until it is submitted. After it is submitted, though, comments and suggestions would still be appreciated so that we might modify the proposal for a future submission should it fail to reach quorum this time around.

Terrorists are threats to national sercurity for any nation and need to be stopped any way possible.

Terrorists are threats to national sercurity for any nation and need to be stopped any way possible.

Exactly what we've been trying to get across all along. :cool:

UN DEFCON
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

OOC and completely flippant: I preferred Anti to Counter. It sounds more British.

OOC and not so flippant: Ecopoeia probably won't be in the UN when this comes to vote (I'm away for a month and I'm not leaving my precious fluffies to the mercy of the UN's rapacious militarist free trade agenda), so that saves me making a decision. Huzzah!

OOC and completely flippant: I preferred Anti to Counter. It sounds more British.

OOC: I'm not British. I just oftentimes spell and speak (words I use, not accent-wise) as though I am, much to Kenny's irritation. ;)

Although Ariddia is not convinced this is a matter of paramount urgency, we find this proposal well constructed, and would specifically like to commend its authors for points 5 and 8. Ariddia will support this.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We most certainly appreciate your support.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Would you support a UN resolution banning the use of retrospective legislation in member-nations? I happen to have one on the drafting-board...

I would have to wait until I saw it before making final judgement, but I definitely support the concept.

OOC: That struck me as being so much of a basic truth (not retroactively applying the law), that I didn't even consider the chance that it could be done otherwise.

IC: Kivisto may not be the best nation for protecting the rights of its citizens, but punishing for something that wasn't illegal when they did it would just be silly.

OOC: Thanks to the folks who are voting for the fourth option in the poll. I feel the love! :p

OOC: I'm not British. I just oftentimes spell and speak (words I use, not accent-wise) as though I am, much to Kenny's irritation. ;)
OOC: Out of interest, is 'oftentimes' used much in the US? It's one of those words you see or hear very rarely over here, a bit of an anachronism. Also, presumably, you don't pronounce the first 't'? Otherwise it sounds pretty clumsy. I've idly wondered every now and then if my habit of dropping the 't' in 'often' is acceptable or just me speaking 'Estuary English'...

Yeah, this is a pretty peculiar tangent. Ah, well.

OOC: Out of interest, is 'oftentimes' used much in the US? It's one of those words you see or hear very rarely over here, a bit of an anachronism. Also, presumably, you don't pronounce the first 't'? Otherwise it sounds pretty clumsy. I've idly wondered every now and then if my habit of dropping the 't' in 'often' is acceptable or just me speaking 'Estuary English'...

Yeah, this is a pretty peculiar tangent. Ah, well.OFF-in-times. Dunno if it's used terribly much in the United States, but it's not a foreign word to me. Course, I'm a SoCal native, and I'm not a wannabe Brit [:p], so what would I know about speaking the language?

Also, will you ever be returning to the UN?

OOC: Thanks to the folks who are voting for the fourth option in the poll. I feel the love! :p You should have made it a public poll. ;)

You should have made it a public poll. ;)

OOC: Yeah, kicking myself for not doing that. :(

OFF-in-times. Dunno if it's used terribly much in the United States, but it's not a foreign word to me. Course, I'm a SoCal native, and I'm not a wannabe Brit [:p], so what would I know about speaking the language?
Heh. I'm struggling to see Cluich as a wannabe Brit for some reason...

Also, will you ever be returning to the UN?
I expect so. Not until July at the earliest, though.

Heh. I'm struggling to see Cluich as a wannabe Brit for some reason...

OOC: Amusingly enough, on a site I used to moderate (and no laughing at the thought of me as a mod! :p ), I was named an honourary Brit.

OOC: Amusingly enough, on a site I used to moderate (and no laughing at the thought of me as a mod! :p ), I was named an honourary Brit.Ya see? Ya see?!! He boasts! He boasts!! He's a freakin' poser!!!!! :p

Lawks-a-mercy! It's true!

Cluich, I suggest you peruse the following to better verse yourself in British gentlemanly behaviour:

The Chap (http://www.thechap.net/)

"Give three-piece a chance"

Ya see? Ya see?!! He boasts! He boasts!! He's a freakin' poser!!!!! :p

No boasting. :p

Lawks-a-mercy! It's true!

Cluich, I suggest you peruse the following to better verse yourself in British gentlemanly behaviour:

The Chap (http://www.thechap.net/)

"Give three-piece a chance"

Oh dear gawd! LOL

Oh dear gawd! LOL
Indeed. The inspiration for my very own Confederation of Anarcho-Dandyists (CADs) (http://www.nationstates.net/anarcho-dandyists).

Grave news:

"The government is to ban the elegant art of smoking in all public places. The new law, contrary to New Labour’s Manifesto pledge, includes private members’ clubs, and, most shocking of all, does not even exclude the Sheridan Club..."

Sorry, but this is far more important than some pissy terrorism bill or whatever it is you're proposing.

Sorry, but this is far more important than some pissy terrorism bill or whatever it is you're proposing.

Speaking of which, we really should get back to that. ;)

Grave news:

"The government is to ban the elegant art of smoking in all public places. The new law, contrary to New Labour’s Manifesto pledge, includes private members’ clubs, and, most shocking of all, does not even exclude the Sheridan Club..."Ha! You're turning into America!! Ha ha!! Ha ha ha!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Does this remind you why this thread was started?

http://www.terrorize.dk/images/hamasgunny.jpg

:p

Before I state my opinion, I have a question.
What exactly would count as an act of terrorism in Nation States? Real life doesn't apply here, so I need some sort of illustration to help me frame my opinion.

--Rooty

First, this is defined in the proposal:

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;

2. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a civilian as a person who is (1) not a member of a military, paramilitary or law-enforcement organization of a nation, or (2) a member of such an organization, but not under arms or performing military duties or functions;

3. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, international terrorism as terrorism that is conducted, instigated, aided, or abetted by persons or groups from outside the borders of the nation in which it takes place;

Give me a minute, and I'll dig up an example from NS.

For an example of state-sponsored international terrorism in NS, click here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Secular_Resistance).

That's precisely the sort of thing this proposal is attempting to address.

And of course there's always this (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36). :p

And of course there's always this (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36). :p

And that incident -- and the chaos that has since erupted, drawing in several other nations -- would never have happened were this proposal in place as a UN resolution.

Psst! Sheik Nadnerb! The penguins blew themselves up!

After they were kidnapped, yes.

Only those actions taken by non-government sanctioned groups.
So if my government drafts a group and puts them in uniforms teaches them left from right and sends them to another nation to kill 'our enemy' the citizens of that nation.... they are warriors not terrorists? If that group goes out of uniform and step without our santion they are terrorist not warriors if they kill 'our enemy' the citizens of another nation. Got it.



Now on the issue of domestic terrorist and international.. Would not domestic terrorist become international terrorist when they get weapons and equipent to function with from outside national borders? Thus there would be no domestic terrorist since one might say they all get something from outside a nations borders they act in. As with more nation outside the UN we would find it difficult to stop this from going on.

First, this is defined in the proposal:It's not changed much from the last one :)

Still gets my thumbs up.

OOC: Thanks to the folks who are voting for the fourth option in the poll. I feel the love! :pYou're welcome! ^_^

So if my government drafts a group and puts them in uniforms teaches them left from right and sends them to another nation to kill 'our enemy' the citizens of that nation.... they are warriors not terrorists? If that group goes out of uniform and step without our santion they are terrorist not warriors if they kill 'our enemy' the citizens of another nation. Got it.

It would be somewhat immoral to send your soldiers to kill innocent citizens, but yes, that would be an act of war, not terrorism. As long as said soldiers are acting without your direction, consent, backing, or whatever, then they would be terrorists.

Now on the issue of domestic terrorist and international.. Would not domestic terrorist become international terrorist when they get weapons and equipent to function with from outside national borders? Thus there would be no domestic terrorist since one might say they all get something from outside a nations borders they act in. As with more nation outside the UN we would find it difficult to stop this from going on.

While it could be easier for them to get weaponry et al from without, it is possible for insurgents to gather what they need from within. And it is true that we cannot stop nations outside of the UN with this legislation, but we can at least make it more difficult for the terrorists by forcing them to go to those other nations instead of picking up what they need from us.

Ha! You're turning into America!! Ha ha!! Ha ha ha!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
*chokes on tears*

but we can at least make it more difficult for the terrorists by forcing them to go to those other nations instead of picking up what they need from us.I don't think we can do anything to force a terrorist to get what they need from a source they can get it from. With the number of nations outside the UN greater who are will to support them they will not need much forciing to go there.

Also certain clauses could hamper efforts to gather information on terrorist groups by causing the exposure of certain persons or companies in a member nation that deals with them to learn about them.

C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons participating in international terrorism;

Such as the clause above... here one must consider keeping family and friend close an enemy even closer, so you can better watch them all.


An example Company A in Nation A is trading arms to a certain group.. Nation B learns this group is involved in terrorist operations and wants to put Company A out of the market plus has no love for Nation A.. Thus they present their finding to the UN and Company A is shut down. Nation A has been monitoring Comany A to learn more on the terrorist groups. Due to security issues only a few get involved in this thus... even if Company A and Nation A are proven inocen they have been exposed. Now could Nation B face charges of supporting terrorists by somebody based on they exposed this.

As even now nations don't openly exchange information on matters of nations security due the fact that to many fingers in the pie ruins it.

ooc: ffs...

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

Yup, I'm getting ready to submit this finally. :cool:

For an example of state-sponsored international terrorism in NS, click here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Secular_Resistance).

That's precisely the sort of thing this proposal is attempting to address.
OOC: you know, I wouldn't put it past Ecopoeia or - more likely - East Hackney, to support this movement.

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

Yup, I'm getting ready to submit this finally. :cool:Hmm. What a coincidence! I was just ranting and raving about how the General Assembly refuses to do anything about this issue.

Hmm. What a coincidence! I was just ranting and raving about how the General Assembly refuses to do anything about this issue.

OOC: I'm busy cleaning out my office today, but if I get time to compose TG text, I'll submit this later this afternoon (EDT). If not, it'll hafta wait till tomorrow morning.

Teufelanbetung sees no reason to not support this proposal. :)

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/19063/page=display_region)

Teufelanbetung sees no reason to not support this proposal. :)

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/19063/page=display_region)

On behalf of the people of Cluichstan and the members of the UN DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), I would like to thank our Teufelanbetunger friends for their support.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

&

Sheik Nottap bin Cluich
Cluichstani Defense Minister

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

Yup, I'm getting ready to submit this finally. :cool:
As I was trying to say yesterday (Damn Jolt's Forums), about damn time.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't know about the text of the card, "A storm is rising." I mean after paying close attention to the Cluichdstani figure on the card that wasn't the thing that was rising in fact ... er on second thought ... oh look it's raining ... I do so need a cold shower right about now.

lol...I enjoyed your "questionaire poll" it demostrates handily the faults of polls. I voted against to be ornery. And to throw a wrench in the statistics. Moreover, the inherent biases were expertly played...you intended the poll to be funny yes?

After having fully reading your proposal, I have to applaud you for a nuanced argument. You have the Dominion of Me Li's support. Err...moral support. We withdrew from the UN because the it kept messing with our internal affairs.

lol...I enjoyed your "questionaire poll" it demostrates handily the faults of polls. I voted against to be ornery. And to throw a wrench in the statistics. Moreover, the inherent biases were expertly played...you intended the poll to be funny yes?

No, it's totally serious. Yeah, that's it...totally serious... :p

After having fully reading your proposal, I have to applaud you for a nuanced argument. You have the Dominion of Me Li's support. Err...moral support. We withdrew from the UN because the it kept messing with our internal affairs.

Thanks for your support, moral or otherwise.

Daemonyxia finds itself unable to vote for or against the draft proposal as it stands.

The proposal has merit, however Daemonyxia is troubled by the concept of "burden of proof".

If Country "A" is able to label group "B" as terrorists and this is then accepted by the whole U.N without investigation, Daemonyxia fears that ruthless countries will use this mechanism to outlaw internal dissident groups.

Daemonyxia proposes that before a group can be labeled as terrorist, the U.N must reach a 2/3rds majority in favour of outlawing said group.

With the above codicil added to the draft, Daemonyxia will give the proposal it´s full support.

Your suggestion is neither legal, sensible, sane nor relevant. This proposal does not even cover "internal" groups. Check the third definition:

3. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, international terrorism as terrorism that is conducted, instigated, aided, or abetted by persons or groups from outside the borders of the nation in which it takes place;

:rolleyes:

Can't wait to see how many times that absurd argument comes up... :rolleyes:

OOC: The UN Counterterrorism Initiative (click here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=counterterrorism) to add your approval) has just been resubmitted. The telegram campaign will begin tomorrow. Anyone wishing to assist with the campaign can telegram me to coordinate our efforts, or simply visit the thread on the DEFCON forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=3&st=225) to climb aboard.

EDIT: When I first tried to submit it, it was 21 characters over, so unfortunately, I had to omit the co-author credit to Ausser. Sorry, mate! But, just to make sure everyone knows how much he helped...

AUSSER HELPED A TON!

Thanks much, Ausser! :D

Your suggestion is neither legal, sensible, sane nor relevant. This proposal does not even cover "internal" groups. Check the third definition:



:rolleyes:

1. Define how Daemonyxia´s proposal is not legal?

2. Sensible? What is to stop my military counterfeiting a strike on a nation in the name of one of my more troublesome internal groups. It´s an international strike created to frame an internal group that Daemonyxia wishes to dispose of. Daemonyxia thinks it´s concerns are valid. Not all Governments are as open and honest as ours. All that is required is "Burden of Proof" not rest with one government alone.

3. Sane? If you wish the U.N to outlaw a group on the strength of it´s "attacks" on one country, without the U.N investigating and then voting, then I fear the original proposal lacks sanity.

4. Relevent?. Daemonyxia thinks it is.

Though the tone of the note from Ambassador of the noble country of Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was dismissive of our concerns, Daemonyxia wishes to thank the Ambassador for his contribution to this debate.

1. Define how Daemonyxia´s proposal is not legal?
It breaks the rules for proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

1. Define how Daemonyxia´s proposal is not legal?Easy. Requiring the UN General Assembly to approve a counter-terror strike would be MetaGaming. The only thing the GA is here for is to pass resolutions, and the only way such resolutions may be enforced is by appointing gnome bureaucrats to staff special commissions.

2. Sensible? What is to stop my military counterfeiting a strike on a nation in the name of one of my more troublesome internal groups. It´s an international strike created to frame an internal group that Daemonyxia wishes to dispose of. Daemonyxia thinks it´s concerns are valid. Not all Governments are as open and honest as ours. All that is required is "Burden of Proof" not rest with one government alone.:eek:

Why the fuck would a member government need to waste all that time, energy and taxpayer dollars just to fake a terror strike so they can crack on a dissident group? Since the proposal does not even cover nationalist organizations, the government may crack down on them whenever and however it pleases, so long it adheres to UN Human Rights mandates. What's more, the UN mandate is to crack down on international terror, not when the UN bids them do so, but when the individual government concludes groups pose a threat to national and/or international security.

3. Sane? If you wish the U.N to outlaw a group on the strength of it´s "attacks" on one country, without the U.N investigating and then voting, then I fear the original proposal lacks sanity.Seems to me the lesser sane option would be to outsource our national security to a bunch of gnomes. :rolleyes:

4. Relevent?. Daemonyxia thinks it is.And the Federal Republic thinks it's not. We win.

It breaks the rules for proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).


Daemonyxia will not support the proposal in it´s current form then.

Daemonyxia will not support the proposal in it´s current form then.

I hear ignorance is bliss. It that really true?

I hear ignorance is bliss. It that really true?

Rudeness now? Are you that desperate to have your proposal passed? For shame.

"A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets."

Daemonyxia needs no boost in it´s police and military budget.

It makes my people safe...even if they are currently oppressed.


Eliminate the cretins.

It makes my people safe...even if they are currently oppressed.


Eliminate the cretins.

Indeed, this proposal would increase the safety of all peoples (in UN member nations) from the threat of international terrorism

"A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets."

The gnomes automatically insert that line into every 'International Security' proposal...

I voted fo but I would like to point out the poll because it has reasons added in is not a fair represention and is biased.

The gnomes automatically insert that line into every 'International Security' proposal...

OOC: Yes, it's part of the definition of the International Security category.

Resubmitting it right now.

Wow, how did I miss this thread before?

Norderia was vehemently opposed to the previous Counterterrorism Initiative on ideological grounds ("Grandpa, what's terrorism?" "Terrorism isn't real, sweetheart. It's just a word they use to describe actions taken by very very very desperate people because of the condition of the world, a symptom to a much worse disease." sorta thing). Upon reading this new Counterterrorism Proposal, I, Tommo the Stout, have determined that this legislation is supportable.

We thank the honorable members of Cluichstan and Ausserland and any other notables who may have aided in the drafting of the Resolution for, in Norderia's eyes, improving it. We are especially pleased with the clause near the bottom that harkens to the disease that produces the symptom of terrorism. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, a feeling that is most welcome on our Cold Shores.

Norderia approves, and with less trepidiation than we imagined we would be. The mandates in this proposal are not difficult to conform to, and will not put too large a dent in the civil liberties of Norderia.

Best of luck.

We'll not be voting in the poll, however, as none of the answers suit us. For this, we shake our fist in mild irritation.


Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
Delegate from the North Sea

Daisetta, while of course in agreement with the general thrust of this proposal, does have one serious reservation about it. This is regarding the statement of following due process "where appropriate." This is, to Daisetta, unacceptably weak. Due process must be followed in all and any situations. If national governements were to be left to decide what was or was not "appropriate" there would be effectively no due process requirement whatsoever, and the whole due process idea would be totally lost, leading to abominations against democracy and justice such as Guantanamo Bay. With the removal of those two words "where appropriate" Daisetta would be able to support this proposal. If they remain, Daisetta can not and will not support it. Due process is ALWAYS appropriate.

Daisetta, while of course in agreement with the general thrust of this proposal, does have one serious reservation about it. This is regarding the statement of following due process "where appropriate." This is, to Daisetta, unacceptably weak. Due process must be followed in all and any situations. If national governements were to be left to decide what was or was not "appropriate" there would be effectively no due process requirement whatsoever, and the whole due process idea would be totally lost, leading to abominations against democracy and justice such as Guantanamo Bay. With the removal of those two words "where appropriate" Daisetta would be able to support this proposal. If they remain, Daisetta can not and will not support it. Due process is ALWAYS appropriate.

OOC: Yes, yes...let's bitch some more about Gitmo. :rolleyes: There's no such thing, as far as I'm aware, in NS, so please knock it off.

IC: The language is essentially a nod to past UN resolutions such as #26, "The Universal Bill of Rights"; #27, "Due Process"; and #47, "Definition of 'Fair'Trial.'" The UN has already addressed the issue of due process and its application. Thus, this proposal need not do so (OOC: and besides, it would go over the character limit if we tried).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Witchcliff supports and approves of this proposal, and will vote for it if it makes the floor. The last time I looked, it was well on its way to doing just that.

If I remember correctly, when the earlier version was on the floor for vote I (as Waterana) had a problem with the part about freezing assets. I don't know if that has been changed, or if the passage of time is just making me read it different, but it didn't ring any alarm bells this time, and sounds perfectly resonable. Could even be because Witchcliff is nowhere near as far left as Waterana was, so I'm not reading it with such a jaundiced eye.

Anyway, well written, well presented and I hope it makes it this time round.

Once again, the Ambassador from the Palentine heartedly endorses this well though out proposal, as will feverently support it once it gets to queue. He also wishes to thank Cluich, Auss, Kenny, and Gruen for their work on drafting and resubmitting it, and continuing the good fight.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla


OOC:like Cluich, I too shall be ignoring that stupid Freedom fighter arguement

Thank you for the poll choice. It makes me feel special, welcome, and even a little giddy.

I'm going to approve this. But just barely.

Approved.
(Yes, I'm a delegate again... :) )

We shouldn't fight terrorists; we should all give them a big hug. Better yet, CPESL vouchers. Some of them guys need to get laid.

Also, what if the terrorists are just "freedom fighters"? Have you ever thought of that?

At this time I would like to make a brief statement:
The Yeldan government fully supports this proposal and will be instructing our UN delegation to cast it's vote for.
That is all.

OOC: Yes, yes...let's bitch some more about Gitmo. :rolleyes: There's no such thing, as far as I'm aware, in NS, so please knock it off.

IC: The language is essentially a nod to past UN resolutions such as #26, "The Universal Bill of Rights"; #27, "Due Process"; and #47, "Definition of 'Fair'Trial.'" The UN has already addressed the issue of due process and its application. Thus, this proposal need not do so (OOC: and besides, it would go over the character limit if we tried).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

How precisely would the removal of two words cause the word count to increase? Without removing the words "where appropriate," there would in effect be NO due process requirement, as national governments would be free to decide where it was appropriate and therefore to decide for whatever reasons it chose that in any specific case it was NOT appropriate. That is unacceptable to the Democratic Republc of Daisetta and, therefore, as it stands we cannot support the proposal.

We also take note of your undiplomatic language.

How precisely would the removal of two words cause the word count to increase? Without removing the words "where appropriate," there would in effect be NO due process requirement, as national governments would be free to decide where it was appropriate and therefore to decide for whatever reasons it chose that in any specific case it was NOT appropriate. That is unacceptable to the Democratic Republc of Daisetta and, therefore, as it stands we cannot support the proposal.

We also take note of your undiplomatic language.

OOC: The "undiplomatic language" was OOC, as is this "undiplomatic language": You fail at reading comprehension.

At this time I would like to make a brief statement:

That is all.

We warmly thank the Yeldan representative for supporting this important piece of legislation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We shouldn't fight terrorists; we should all give them a big hug. Better yet, CPESL vouchers. Some of them guys need to get laid.

Also, what if the terrorists are just "freedom fighters"? Have you ever thought of that?

OOC: Gonna kill you, Kenny. Yes, I know...I'm a bastard. :p

CPESL vouchers to all who vote for the resolution once it hits the floor! Yup, it reached quorum!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Once again, the Ambassador from the Palentine heartedly endorses this well though out proposal, as will feverently support it once it gets to queue. He also wishes to thank Cluich, Auss, Kenny, and Gruen for their work on drafting and resubmitting it, and continuing the good fight.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla


OOC:like Cluich, I too shall be ignoring that stupid Freedom fighter arguement

Let's not forget the esteemed representative of Hirota, who also lobbied diligently for this proposal to reach the floor and was the first to work with me on drafting it. Thanks, my fine Hirotan friend!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Witchcliff supports and approves of this proposal, and will vote for it if it makes the floor. The last time I looked, it was well on its way to doing just that.

If I remember correctly, when the earlier version was on the floor for vote I (as Waterana) had a problem with the part about freezing assets. I don't know if that has been changed, or if the passage of time is just making me read it different, but it didn't ring any alarm bells this time, and sounds perfectly resonable. Could even be because Witchcliff is nowhere near as far left as Waterana was, so I'm not reading it with such a jaundiced eye.

Anyway, well written, well presented and I hope it makes it this time round.

We sincerely thank the representative of Witchcliff for the compliments and for supporting this proposal. We trust the support will continue when the proposal reaches the floor.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Let's not forget the esteemed representative of Hirota, who also lobbied diligently for this proposal to reach the floor and was the first to work with me on drafting it. Thanks, my fine Hirotan friend!Bah! They only did it because they knew we'd be forced to join the UN if this passes, thus obligating us to protect individual sovereignty, workers' rights, right to die, and all that fluffy bullshit.

Speaking as the representative of a nation who originally developed nukes back in the '40s just because Hirota had them, I'd like to say "Screw You, Hirota! (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/List_of_nations_with_nuclear_capability#By_Date)"

:p

Bah! They only did it because they knew we'd be forced to join the UN if this passes, thus obligating us to protect individual sovereignty, workers' rights, right to die, and all that fluffy bullshit.

Speaking as the representative of a nation who originally developed nukes back in the '40s just because Hirota had them, I'd like to say "Screw You, Hirota! (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/List_of_nations_with_nuclear_capability#By_Date)"

:p

OOC: Thanks for pointing me to that page. I've added Cluichstan, which achieved nuclear capability on the date of my birth. :cool:

OOC: Thanks for pointing me to that page. I've added Cluichstan, which achieved nuclear capability on the date of my birth. :cool:
OOC: I think you were editing that page at the same time i was.

How precisely would the removal of two words cause the word count to increase? Without removing the words "where appropriate," there would in effect be NO due process requirement, as national governments would be free to decide where it was appropriate and therefore to decide for whatever reasons it chose that in any specific case it was NOT appropriate.We hold that the previous resolutions cited by Sheik bin Cluich are sufficient for upholding due process; we see no reason why this article need do any more to protect that right. This resolution was introduced to improve national security, not civil liberties.

In addition, we find the mention of Gitmo wholly irrelevant to the passage in question, which specifically deals with freezing terror assets:

B. Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably 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 their direction in this regard. Nations shall develop legal mechanisms to ensure that proper due process is provided in such cases where appropriate, but shall ensure that action is taken quickly enough to prevent removal of liquid assets from their jurisdictions.Governments have every right to seize the assets of suspected criminals; not only have you failed to explain how Gitmo even applies here, you have failed to explain why terror suspects deserve any more leeway than common criminals where the freezing of suspects' assets is concerned.

We also take note of your undiplomatic language.Ha. This is the UN forum, sweeheart. You wanna see undiplomatic language, we can sure as hell show you some.

OOC: Thanks for pointing me to that page. I've added Cluichstan, which achieved nuclear capability on the date of my birth.I'd add the Hack (well, the Hack's precursor, the Socialist Union of Mhu Thulan), but my history is a little weird, and I'd hate to be acused of godmoding for having nukes way "too early". Oddly enough, the Hack has the ability, but never bothered to build them. Too much money; too little deterant.

Er... um... [/hijack]

Yay quorum!

I entered this forum expecting some scary resolution that I would oppose vehemently. However, I am pleasently surprised, and happy to say that I actually support this proposal. It provides a concise and reasonably accurate definition of terrorism, and insures that nations treat it seriously and do not use it as a tool to indirectly attack other nations. Beleive it or not, DBL was attacked by terrorists shortly after it's official founding (read international recognition (OOC: Just after I made it)). The event drove home the seriousness of the issue, and we are glad to say we can support this proposal without compromising our beleifs in civil righs and liberties... something I feared when first reading the title.

doesnt anywone even consider the possibility of the "terrorists" being false and a cover up for cynical social manipulation

most of these polls are biased. dosen't really matter though because it is not official or anything. Now that I think of it all these polls are biased because they are on the forum witch I am pretty sure is more a soverignist then the UN itself.

doesnt anywone even consider the possibility of the "terrorists" being false and a cover up for cynical social manipulation

When you get some seniority and make enough of a stink in the debates about stuff like that, you get your own choice in the polls. Like me. Ahhhh, unofficial polls...

When you get some seniority and make enough of a stink in the debates about stuff like that, you get your own choice in the polls.... Or have these kinds of polls named after you. Like me. [/boast]

Well it is alot better done then the last one but honestly forceing all member natiosn to contribte is agaist my moral codes and sadly cuse you force me to do something I have to turn my back to this. You should have said all member mations May. But then again we may see a repeat of what hapepned last time.

Well it is alot better done then the last one but honestly forceing all member natiosn to contribte is agaist my moral codes and sadly cuse you force me to do something I have to turn my back to this. You should have said all member mations May. But then again we may see a repeat of what hapepned last time.What's the point of asking nations? Those who cause the biggest problems would inevitably simply choose not to do so.

It's not something that should be optional, the deliberate killing and maiming of innocent civilians (irrespective of nationality) by terrorism should be combatted on all fronts, not on an optional basis.

I would like to point out something I forgot to mention in my above post. This proposal really does little about Domestic terrorism, that is terrorist acts conducted within one nation. Although seemingly an issue of sub-UN importance, it is known that domestic terrorists are often funded by other nations to continue to wreak havoc in their home nation, making them non internatiional terrorists, but worthy of UN consideration. I would also like to point out how national governments can, and often do, use acts of terrorism or domestic terrorist forces to maintain control in their nation. I was wondering if someone would address these issues in the proposal, or explain how the proposal may negate, or at least limit these issues.

it is known that domestic terrorists are often funded by other nations to continue to wreak havoc in their home nation, making them non internatiional terrorists, but worthy of UN consideration.Um...

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, international terrorism as terrorism that is conducted, instigated, aided, or abetted by persons or groups from outside the borders of the nation in which it takes place;Looks like foreign governments funding domestic terrorists is considered "international terrorism" by this Proposal.

Um...

Looks like foreign governments funding domestic terrorists is considered "international terrorism" by this Proposal.

Thanks, Hack. You saved me the cut-n-paste trouble. ;)

I voted for this resolution because in The eurasian Republic we suffered from a terrorist group lead by a banned member. the terrorist group was QBEC which successfuly blew half of the Manussan capital up in one go. Was also involved in the kipnap of the Presidents family ( then Prime Minister) and assisted in the near collaspe of a member nations government terrorism is only good for the terrorists them selves and does no one else any favours stamp it out

I voted for this resolution because in The eurasian Republic we suffered from a terrorist group lead by a banned member. the terrorist group was QBEC which successfuly blew half of the Manussan capital up in one go. Was also involved in the kipnap of the Presidents family ( then Prime Minister) and assisted in the near collaspe of a member nations government terrorism is only good for the terrorists them selves and does no one else any favours stamp it out

Thank you for your support of this proposal. We are saddened by the destruction brought upon your capital and hope that this proposal will pass to prevent such atrocities from ever occurring again. The High Sultan of Cluichstan himself has also personally authorised me to offer the assistance of the Cluichstani people in rebuilding the Manussan capital (in exchange for the establishment of a military base in a remote part of your glorious nation, of course), and I'm told that Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21) would like to set up offices in Manussa as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

When you get some seniority and make enough of a stink in the debates about stuff like that, you get your own choice in the polls. Like me. Ahhhh, unofficial polls...

i guess so

Thank you for your support of this proposal. We are saddened by the destruction brought upon your capital and hope that this proposal will pass to prevent such atrocities from ever occurring again. The High Sultan of Cluichstan himself has also personally authorised me to offer the assistance of the Cluichstani people in rebuilding the Manussan capital (in exchange for the establishment of a military base in a remote part of your glorious nation, of course), and I'm told that Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21) would like to set up offices in Manussa as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


Thank you for your offer of assistance. but rebuilding has been nearly completed. It create a massive work incentive across the entire Manussan empire. As for the remote base a proposal has already been submitted on your behalf to the Manussan defence select committee but this may pass with conditions. ( such as intelligence sharing some small trade contracts and use of the base in emergencies)

Your private entertainment enterprise need only apply for a business licence at which ever city or province they require to set up in if you run into any problems I am sure my office can find a way to grease the runs for you

[OOC: I believe the author indicated he just wanted to use the old thread for this vote, so it be OK to sticky this and change the title, moderator-type persons!]

Ladies and gentlemen of this fine assembly,

It is my duty to report a dangerous rogue regime operating in our midst: one that continues to wage war on weaker powers using landmines and biological weapons, proliferates nukes like no one's business, does not provide safe workplaces for its workers, or allow them to sit around on their asses and claim they're "on strike"; a regime that brazenly refuses patients the right to die, discriminates against the Xt'Tapolopaquetl (I mean, who really cares if they are responsible for 90 percent of the terror attacks in their nation?), tortures POWs with swirlies, purple nurples, California wines and Celine Dion music; a government that allows whaling, refuses to mitigate large reservoirs, will not protect freedom of conscience (take that, Euiicoaoiaoopeaiiaa!), and won't even give adorable little green computers to schoolchildren!

[Scandalous murmers from the audience.]

I'm talking about the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny!

[Murmers escalate.]

That's right, the Federal Republic (at least the renegade administration currently in power there) refuses to join the United Nations unless it passes substantial and appropriately brutal anti-terrorism legislation. I just had a conference call with a leader of Hirota, which purports to care more about our people than we do, and it's clear to me that as long as this nation remains outside the UN (the Federal Republic, that is), its people cannot reap the benefits of cultural imperialism, and its government will not operate as though the UN gnomes run the joint. It's certainly how my administration did things when I was in office, but no more: the people have elected some obscene and libidinous pervert to replace me, and he does whatever the hell he wants, the UN be damned!

[The murmurs continue; excited shouts of "No!" can be heard.]

Which is why it is imperative that the General Assembly enact the resolution currently at vote. Sure, it's alarmingly severe, maybe even a bit cowboyish, and only the last line appeals to me personally (as it should, for I am a spineless liberal, and a child-hating one at that) -- but there's one good thing that will come of this: once the Federal Republic returns to the UN, the Kennyite people will finally know what it's like to live in a civilized, un-"backward" nation!

... If it weren't for that God-damned Creative Solutions Agency! But hey, even loophole-wankers need work, and there's really no point in giving it to them, until you pass this bill.

Please, honorable ambassadors, think of the Kennyites. Vote FOR the UN Counterterrorism Initiative.

John Thorne
Former President of the Federal Republic
Speacial Envoy to the United Nations

Um...

Looks like foreign governments funding domestic terrorists is considered "international terrorism" by this Proposal.

I’m regrettably not convinced the definition answers the question adequately. Persons or groups are separate legal entities to the State. Certainly individuals or groups of individuals who are government officials could be prosecuted. However it does not follow that a State sanctioned policy (where the State is the legal entity) could be held accountable under this definition. I believe therefore the honourable member from Dancing Bananland raises an interesting legal argument.

However interesting this point may be, it does not in itself nullify the rest of the document. We have seen many proposals on the topic of terrorism come and go within this assembly and at last it appears we have a resolution, which in the main covers many of the concerns raised over so many months.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

The Rogue Nation of Bicycle Nation opposes this resolution and urges all nations to vote against it. The resolution only deals with International Terrorism, which does not go far enough. It must also cover (if you permit me to make up a word) Intranational Terrorism.

Terrorists like these:

:sniper:

:mp5:

:upyours:
might only work within one particular nation and not internationally. In such a case this resolution would do nothing to address this problem. All terrorists would have to do would be not to operate internationally and this resolution would become meaningless and completely ineffective.

The Rogue Nation of Bicycle Nation therefore challenges the UN to re-write this resolution and where ever "International Terrorism" occurs to change it to "all forms of terrorism".

Thank you.
Merkx
President of the Rogue Nation of Bicycle Nation

I’m regrettably not convinced the definition answers the question adequately. Persons or groups are separate legal entities to the State. Certainly individuals or groups of individuals who are government officials could be prosecuted. However it does not follow that a State sanctioned policy (where the State is the legal entity) could be held accountable under this definition. I believe therefore the honourable member from Dancing Bananland raises an interesting legal argument.

Wouldn't Article 6 forbid a state to sanction such a policy?

*snip*This proposal was intentionally crafted to omit domestic terrorism, in order to give member governments leeway on how best to handle it. If you have terrorists that operate exclusively in your own borders, you deal with them. It ain't my problem.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador-at-Large

This proposal was intentionally crafted to omit domestic terrorism, in order to give member governments leeway on how best to handle it. If you have terrorists that operate exclusively in your own borders, you deal with them. It ain't my problem.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador-at-Large


Yes, and that was the (real world) U.S. policy until 9/11. Also see:
Afghanistan , West Bank, Lebanon, Gaza Strip, etc.

What's your point? The terrorists operating in West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan are not domestic terrorists. Whatever U.S. policy might have been toward them pre-9/11, post-9/11, inter-9/11, unter-9/11 or uber-9/11 has nothing to do with this proposal.

My point is domestic terrorists which are not dealt with by the Internation community have the ability to partially (Lebanon) or completely take over a country (Afghanistan). These elements will then become a problem internationally and will be harder to dismantle as it will involve foreign powers invading, occupying, and then forming a new government -- all while in the course of (most likely) fighting insurgent elements which will be fed by the invasion of the country.

The UN needs to help not only stop International Terrorism, which I agree is a problem, but also to stop domestic terrorism before it gathers enough strength to become an international problem.

My point is domestic terrorists which are not dealt with by the Internation community have the ability to partially (Lebanon) or completely take over a country (Afghanistan).Except that Hezbollah and al-Qaida were never domestic terrorists to begin with. Under this proposal, support for such groups would be forbidden -- and the moment domestic terrorists become an international preoblem, they will be dealt with internationally.

"8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc."

Terrorist actions aren't a result of poverty or inadequate education... how many times have hill-billies living in West Virginia ever blown up a foreign embassy? And if these terrorists are so "impoverished," how the hell can they afford such an elaborate global network and weaponry?

Let's face it -- Most terrorists are religious extremists.

I see your point, but I still think it is better to stop a problem sooner rather than later. I think it would be better for the International Community to help smaller nations (like Bicycle Nation for instance) fight and contain all acts of terrorism domestic and international. I think it would be better for the world situation to show all terrorist elements the world community will not tolerate any kind of terrorism.

If a small country like mine does not have the resources to fight terrorist elements domestically, how would I have the resources to fight an international one? Would it not be more efficient, less costly, and send a stronger message if the UN were to try to put to an end to all terrorism -- not just the terrorists that operate internationally?

Any time terrorists gain any power within a country whether they are operate domestically or internationally it is a victory for them and a passive admission by the international community that some forms of terrorism are to be permitted while others are not. I condemn this position as a dangerous acceptance of a destructive element to peace and well being.

Why wait until terrorists begin to operate internationally to stop them? II think this resolution attacks the symptoms while ignoring the underlying cause. To permit some terrorism and not others is unacceptable, irresponsible, and dangerous. IT will be costly in money, in lives, in trade, and in the peace and well being of all world citizens.

"8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc."

Terrorist actions aren't a result of poverty or inadequate education... how many times have hill-billies living in West Virginia ever blown up a foreign embassy? And if these terrorists are so "impoverished," how the hell can they afford such an elaborate global network and weaponry?

Let's face it -- Most terrorists are religious extremists.

Ohhhhh, you silly silly... Person.

West Virginia is hardly the pinacle of poverty in the world.

Let me tell you a tale (You also oughta see Syriana). Joe Schlub has no job in a country that has no money. He's got nothing to do with his life, and no way to find a purpose. Along comes a very charismatic religious leader. He claims to have a use for Mr. Schlub. Joe Schlub, moved by the story the religious leader tells (which explains WHY there is no job for him) and joins the cause, filled with purpose, and anger. It's not hard to convince desperate people to do things. On his way to a meeting of this group, he passes his friend. "Come with me, we can go fight the people who are the reason we have no jobs." The friend says "Great, I'm in!" And off they go to be brainwashed by a silver-tongued, in this case, religious fella.

Now, take Joe Schmoe, in a country that is improving. He has no job, gets desperate, and Mr. Silvertongue comes along and convinces him to join the cause, etc. etc. Now, on his way, he sees his friend, and tells him to come along. The friend, however, says, "Eh, I better not. I have a job now, and I don't want to be late for work." "Wait, you got a job?" says the other guy. "Yes. I am making money, and feeding my family." "Hey, do you think you could talk to your boss and help me get a job there too?" "Of course, my friend!" Now he has a job, he's not so interested in blowing himself up for the good of ANY cause. All he wants is stability. And if he can find stability, he won't have to go out and fight for it.

About the religious Silver tongue who is recruiting these otherwise well-intentioned people? There are zealots in every religion. Even in RL America's precious Christianity (Pat Roberston is really all I have to say).

So before you dismiss desperate people as just psychotic low-life religious nut cases, you have to understand that a majority of them were either taught to be that from childhood (See Iran's great martyr children with the plastic keys around their necks) or became that way throughout their life.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Edit:
And your point about the global network and such -- In most groups, you have the leaders with all the money, and the pawns with just enough to keep them satisfied. Remember, the clause says "the causes of terrorism," not the conditions in which terrorists live.

I see your point, but I still think it is better to stop a problem sooner rather than later. I think it would be better for the International Community to help smaller nations (like Bicycle Nation for instance) fight and contain all acts of terrorism domestic and international. I think it would be better for the world situation to show all terrorist elements the world community will not tolerate any kind of terrorism.

If a small country like mine does not have the resources to fight terrorist elements domestically, how would I have the resources to fight an international one? Would it not be more efficient, less costly, and send a stronger message if the UN were to try to put to an end to all terrorism -- not just the terrorists that operate internationally?

Any time terrorists gain any power within a country whether they are operate domestically or internationally it is a victory for them and a passive admission by the international community that some forms of terrorism are to be permitted while others are not. I condemn this position as a dangerous acceptance of a destructive element to peace and well being.

Why wait until terrorists begin to operate internationally to stop them? II think this resolution attacks the symptoms while ignoring the underlying cause. To permit some terrorism and not others is unacceptable, irresponsible, and dangerous. IT will be costly in money, in lives, in trade, and in the peace and well being of all world citizens.

Get allies to send aid. The issues you are raising are not under the purview of the UN. However, I am certain that Cluichstan would be glad to establish a military base somewhere in your country. OMGTKK would be glad to send some Stripper Commandos, or Exploding Penguins.

The problem with introducing legislation that deals with domestic terrorism is that I would never support it. Call it a NatSov kinda thing. I deal with domestic terrorists (if we ever have any) in a way far dissimilar to Cluich, Gruen, or Kenny would. And since it's domestic, it is not an international concern.

If you cannot deal with domestic terrorism, then something is wrong either with your government, or with your people (cuz they gotta be fighting against something right?). Barring that, since I doubt anyone would listen to the concerns of someone blowing up a public bus (as, really, no one should, when they cross the line), then you need some help from outside nations. Not UN legislation.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

The Principality of UberNothing must come down against this proposal. It is good to prevent terrorism. It is article C that makes this impossible. We quote:

"C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons participating in international terrorism;"

What is passive?

Is passive having freedoms that allow citizens, or non citizens, the right to buy and carry arms?

Is passive simply allowing corporations to buy and sell mining equipment such as explosives that may, some-how, be used by an international terrorist?

Or is passive simply doing nothing at all?

This one word is far too open to interpretation. Therefore, we will be voting against it.

Prince Nill
Prince of the Principality of UberNothing

Yahtzee!
More like "chance".

I have voted AGAINST.

My vote is primarily concerned with the notion that only civilians can be the victims of terrorist attacks. Attacks such as the RL 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut would not be covered under this resolution. Why did the author deliberately exclude military targets from this resolution's parameters? The attackers would still non-military, and would still likely get help from outside the borders of the country in which the attack took place.

Is it possible to have no collateral damage from a terrorist or terrorist-sponsored attack on a military installation? Yes. If only collateral damage makes the attack subject to this resolution, it seems to me that any attackers should just keep their damage confined to the boundaries of the base or installation so targeted. Unless you're going to split hairs to the point where you claim as collateral damage the grief and pain inflicted upon any civilian family of a soldier killed in a terrorist attack.

As always, I will eagerly listen to all reasonable arguments intended to persuade me to change my vote.

M. Jubal

The Principality of UberNothing must come down against this proposal. It is good to prevent terrorism. It is article C that makes this impossible. We quote:

"C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons participating in international terrorism;"

What is passive?

Is passive having freedoms that allow citizens, or non citizens, the right to buy and carry arms?

Is passive simply allowing corporations to buy and sell mining equipment such as explosives that may, some-how, be used by an international terrorist?

Or is passive simply doing nothing at all?

This one word is far too open to interpretation. Therefore, we will be voting against it.

Prince Nill
Prince of the Principality of UberNothing

It's good to read and look for such suspect things in Resolutions, and I applaud the good Prince for doing so.

However, I must say that when one has a question of Resolution, that one should wait for an answer before deciding their vote. That way they are leaving room to be convinced to change their mind about the issue.

My answer to your question is that active support would likely mean providing means, and passive support would be supporting the ends without providing the means. If a national government steps in to defend the actions taken by an international terrorist (as defined by this Resolution) then they are in support of the terrorist, if not actually funding, providing shelter, or employing the terrorist. I may also lump third party intermediary for transfering funds as passive, but that's just a bit of a stretch.

I've kinda lost my train of thought at this point, so I'll let someone else answer until I get my bearings again.

My vote is primarily concerned with the notion that only civilians can be the victims of terrorist attacks. Attacks such as the RL 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut would not be covered under this resolution. Why did the author deliberately exclude military targets from this resolution's parameters? The attackers would still non-military, and would still likely get help from outside the borders of the country in which the attack took place.

Is it possible to have no collateral damage from a terrorist or terrorist-sponsored attack on a military installation? Yes. If only collateral damage makes the attack subject to this resolution, it seems to me that any attackers should just keep their damage confined to the boundaries of the base or installation so targeted. Unless you're going to split hairs to the point where you claim as collateral damage the grief and pain inflicted upon any civilian family of a soldier killed in a terrorist attack.

As always, I will eagerly listen to all reasonable arguments intended to persuade me to change my vote.

M. Jubal

The military is a legitimate target of any militant action. The RL bombing in Beirut was a successful strike against a military installation. The US got caught with their pants down, and that's that. Guerilla warfare is different than terrorism.

Whether involved in a declared war, or deployed for peace keeping, the military are the military and that makes them legit targets.

However, in the RL bombing, a Lebonese janitor was killed. So, really, a civilian casualty did occur, and one could say that since he worked in the building, he was at the very least, collateral damage, if not a target.

Wouldn't Article 6 forbid a state to sanction such a policy?

In our humble view regrettably no in that Article six is dependent upon the definitions as described in Articles one to three. Definitions in this document rightfully define “for the purpose of this resolution” the scope of what is considered international terrorism. However the definitions did not cover State sanctioned terrorism thus the State as its own legal entity may not be covered under this resolution.

We would like to reiterate though despite these legal points the government of Telidia remain in support of this document. If nothing else the UN should proclaim its official stance against terrorism and we therefore urge members to vote in favour.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

hirota votes for this proposal.

We worked closely with the government of Cluichistan on a previous proposal which failed to pass on the matter of terrorism, and have observed keenly the progress towards this rewrite. We wholly endorse this proposal.

In our humble view regrettably no in that Article six is dependent upon the definitions as described in Articles one to three. Definitions in this document rightfully define “for the purpose of this resolution” the scope of what is considered international terrorism. However the definitions did not cover State sanctioned terrorism thus the State as its own legal entity may not be covered under this resolution.

I think perhaps state sponsored terrorism is a whole other can of worms that ought to be dealt with in a separate Resolution.

I for one am always glad to see Resolutions that deal with one topic. It is hard to be concise and accurate when one is dealing with many problems and only one solution.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Frankly, I'm apalled at section 6-E of the proposal. Why should my country hand over its citizens so willingly so they can be brutally interrogated? I feel my citizens come first, I should not blindly endanger them; any criminal measures that need to be taken, will be done responsibly by the country in which the "wanted" citizen lives. ;) :mp5:

Frankly, I'm apalled at section 6-E of the proposal. Why should my country hand over its citizens so willingly so they can be brutally interrogated? I feel my citizens come first, I should not blindly endanger them; any criminal measures that need to be taken, will be done responsibly by the country in which the "wanted" citizen lives. ;) :mp5:

..... What?

Frankly, I'm apalled at section 6-E of the proposal. Why should my country hand over its citizens so willingly so they can be brutally interrogated? I feel my citizens come first, I should not blindly endanger them; any criminal measures that need to be taken, will be done responsibly by the country in which the "wanted" citizen lives. ;) :mp5:

Eh?
Afford one another the greatest practicable assistance in connection with criminal investigations and legal proceedings related to international terrorism. First of all this does nothing to imply brutality. Secondly there are existing resolutions in place with outlaw torture. Thirdly, you use the ruddy mp5 smiley. Fourthly, this does nothing to say they should be moved either.

Read it again, and again, and again. Then come back with a problem that actually exists.

I think perhaps state sponsored terrorism is a whole other can of worms that ought to be dealt with in a separate Resolution.

I for one am always glad to see Resolutions that deal with one topic. It is hard to be concise and accurate when one is dealing with many problems and only one solution.

Lydia nodded appreciatively as the Norderian spoke. She had not forgotten his timely help in the Strangers Bar one evening.

The government of Telidia agrees with the position of the Norderian ambassador. To clarify we were merely answering a question from the Party Mode delegation regarding an earlier assertion this resolution did indeed cover State sanctioned terrorism.

We remain of course in favour of the current document and thank the Norderian delegation for their valid comments.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Lorien7 will support this proposal. We look upon the cowardly terrorists with disgust, and any anti-terrorist measures (within reason) are welcomed.

Lydia nodded appreciatively as the Norderian spoke. She had not forgotten his timely help in the Strangers Bar one evening.

The government of Telidia agrees with the position of the Norderian ambassador. To clarify we were merely answering a question from the Party Mode delegation regarding an earlier assertion this resolution did indeed cover State sanctioned terrorism.

We remain of course in favour of the current document and thank the Norderian delegation for their valid comments.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Tommo the Stout offers a casual and loose salute/wave, wordlessly marking his understanding.

My vote is primarily concerned with the notion that only civilians can be the victims of terrorist attacks. Attacks such as the RL 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut would not be covered under this resolution. Why did the author deliberately exclude military targets from this resolution's parameters? The attackers would still non-military, and would still likely get help from outside the borders of the country in which the attack took place.Here I would like to point out that the incident cited by the Intangelonian deputy was carried out by a group which falls squarely within the definition of "international terrorists" under this proposal; therefore, any support, aid or comfort to that group, any group like it (or any member suspected of conducting terror-related activities for said group), would be forbidden; in addition, nations would be compelled criminalize all terror-related activities conducted on behalf of said group, punish all those acting on its behalf and freeze their assets.

This proposal is not intended to outlaw so-called "guerilla" tactics or dictate to nations what are and what are not acceptable forms of combat against uniformed military. Its purpose is to combat a specific form of terrorism being conducted across international borders, the purpose of which is to promote radical ideologies through the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Even so, the Federal Republic hereby condemns any suggestion that unprovoked assaults on peacekeepers are in any way a legitimate or acceptable form of combat.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Let's face it -- Most terrorists are religious extremists.

As self-professed religious extremists, We take exception to the intemperate statements of the representative of Greedandmoria. Indeed, as victims of state-sponsored terrorism from the likes of Omigodtheykilledkenny, We are painfully aware that terrorism is more likely directed against religious extremists than by them.

Terrorist actions aren't a result of poverty or inadequate education... how many times have hill-billies living in West Virginia ever blown up a foreign embassy?

OOC: I grew up in West Virginia and resent this immensely. :mad:

The Principality of UberNothing must come down against this proposal. It is good to prevent terrorism. It is article C that makes this impossible. We quote:

"C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons participating in international terrorism;"

What is passive?

Is passive having freedoms that allow citizens, or non citizens, the right to buy and carry arms?

Is passive simply allowing corporations to buy and sell mining equipment such as explosives that may, some-how, be used by an international terrorist?

Or is passive simply doing nothing at all?

This one word is far too open to interpretation. Therefore, we will be voting against it.

Prince Nill
Prince of the Principality of UberNothing

"Passive" support, under this proposal, is allowing terrorists to operate against another nation from your territory. No interpretation is necessary if you actually read the bloody proposal.

"Passive" support, under this proposal, is allowing terrorists to operate against another nation from your territory. No interpretation is necessary if you actually read the bloody proposal.

Do you ever wonder how many people actually read the proposals? From some of this debate and many others, it seems to me that most just skim through and don't read enough to actually understand it.

Do you ever wonder how many people actually read the proposals? From some of this debate and many others, it seems to me that most just skim through and don't read enough to actually understand it.

OOC: Never wonder anymore. Most just skim. :rolleyes:

OOC: Never wonder anymore. Most just skim. :rolleyes:

OOC:Heh. Too bad for them.

OOC:Heh. Too bad for them.

Worse for proposals that have been given months of thought.

As expected, The Hack gives its full (moral) support to this Proposal. We strongly encourage other nations to likewise give support as it is a solid piece of legislature, as opposed to the fluffy-headed nonsense usually put forward by this organization. We'll be watching this debate with interest.

I have also received word from sources that wish to remain unnamed that a certain UN nation that has no connection to us in any way, but is classified in our documents as a "puppet" has voted in favor of this Proposal.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Do you ever wonder how many people actually read the proposals? From some of this debate and many others, it seems to me that most just skim through and don't read enough to actually understand it.

I would say that's true of a great many people that participate in this political process, on both sides of resolutions up for vote.

We're inclined to vote yes, but I'm very suspicious of this resolution for some reason. However I can't actually see anything wrong with it. Perhaps my misgivings will surface as we watch this debate.

While we despise terrorism in all its forms, and commend any effort to destroy this state-sponsored evil, we must oppose this bill on fundamental principles. Let me first quote from the bill:


1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;
We feel this is far too broad a definition of "terrorism" and intrudes excessively into our jurisdiction and national sovereignty. On the rare occasion an Ishtarean citizen may use a bomb or a gun in an act of political or religious crime against fellow Ishtareans, we consider it entirely an internal police matter and we do not need, nor do we seek, UN meddling in our internal affairs. We certainly shall not permit UN bureaucrats to meddle with our justice system. Domestic terrorism is a purely an internal affair. This Resolution should concern itself only with international terrorism. The language of this Resolution fails to distinguish between the two.


8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc.
We feel the vague, watery language of this Resolution which fails to condemn the funders, perpetrators and idealogues of hate idealogy is essentially useless. This clause is vague and insufficiently explained, for example how we do interpret "etc."

We do not interpret international terrorism to be caused by "poverty" and "inadequate ineducation." We believe it is created by poisonous, virulent anti-modern idealogies, often of a religious bent and funded by authoritarian regimes who attempt to turn internal anger outwards against imaginary enemies.

We further believe terrorists are enabled by lax, criminally negligent so-called democracies who in the name of "asylum laws" and "free speech" deliberately aid and abet hatemongers who then go on to encourage and create terrorism in third countries.

Instead we suggest the Resolution be amended so that nations that harbor known terrorists, that fail to execute or extradite known terrorists, terrorist financiers, and terrorist propagandists should be censured. Furthermore we suggest that in the principle of national self-defense, the Resolution must reiterate the principle of international law that it is entirely legitimate and legal for a victim of international terrorism to defend itself by any means necessary.


Therefore the Republic votes NO on this proposal and urges all independent-minded nations to categorically reject this ineffectual grandstanding which, in the Republic's view, will do nothing to redress the crimes of international terrorism, but instead offers the ineffectual appeasers of terrorism a legal fig leaf while turning a blind eye to their own complicity in supporting the violence.

We decline to even comment on the intitial, prejudical remarks that accompanies this resolution, except to comment that is the kind of language we might expect from a Rogue State.


We yield the remainder of our time to the chair.

While we despise terrorism in all its forms, and commend any effort to destroy this state-sponsored evil, we must oppose this bill on fundamental principles. Let me first quote from the bill:



We feel this is far too broad a definition of "terrorism" and intrudes excessively into our jurisdiction and national sovereignty. On the rare occasion an Ishtarean citizen may use a bomb or a gun in an act of political or religious crime against fellow Ishtareans, we consider it entirely an internal police matter and we do not need, nor do we seek, UN meddling in our internal affairs. We certainly shall not permit UN bureaucrats to meddle with our justice system. Domestic terrorism is a purely an internal affair. This Resolution should concern itself only with international terrorism. The language of this Resolution fails to distinguish between the two.

Ahhhh, but read further. The Resolution then defines International terrosim separately. The purpose of having the first definition is define terrorism itself. The definition of international terrorism is to define what makes terrorism as defined in the first definition an international flavor.

Then, the Resolution goes on to mandate ONLY on International terrorism. You are still free to deal with domestic terrorism as you see fit (as am I). Your concern is unfounded. I urge you to read further into the Resolution.


We feel the vague, watery language of this Resolution which fails to condemn the funders, perpetrators and idealogues of hate idealogy is essentially useless. This clause is vague and insufficiently explained, for example how we do interpret "etc."
It kinda bugs me when people rip on that clause... I fought long and hard for that clause...

We do not interpret international terrorism to be caused by "poverty" and "inadequate ineducation." We believe it is created by poisonous, virulent anti-modern idealogies, often of a religious bent and funded by authoritarian regimes who attempt to turn internal anger outwards against imaginary enemies.
In such a case, "etc." would include governments with attitudes like that. Such a belief is narrow minded and pessemistic.

We further believe terrorists are enabled by lax, criminally negligent so-called democracies who in the name of "asylum laws" and "free speech" deliberately aid and abet hatemongers who then go on to encourage and create terrorism in third countries.
Ahem.... To borrow a cue from FL...

NEXT

Instead we suggest the Resolution be amended so that nations that harbor known terrorists, that fail to execute or extradite known terrorists, terrorist financiers, and terrorist propagandists should be censured. Furthermore we suggest that in the principle of national self-defense, the Resolution must reiterate the principle of international law that it is entirely legitimate and legal for a victim of international terrorism to defend itself by any means necessary.
In other words, you want a Resolution that is more rabid than the one that failed in these halls a few months ago.


Therefore the Republic votes NO on this proposal and urges all independent-minded nations to categorically reject this ineffectual grandstanding which, in the Republic's view, will do nothing to redress the crimes of international terrorism, but instead offers the ineffectual appeasers of terrorism a legal fig leaf while turning a blind eye to their own complicity in supporting the violence.
I'd take offense to these accusations, but they aren't as bad as some of the ones I've been getting in the MAWS thread.

So aside from your Big Brotheran idea that this Resolution should be stronger (and yet not IntFed), your concern has been answered.

Witchcliff fully supports this resolution and has voted for.

I would say that's true of a great many people that participate in this political process, on both sides of resolutions up for vote.

We're inclined to vote yes, but I'm very suspicious of this resolution for some reason. However I can't actually see anything wrong with it. Perhaps my misgivings will surface as we watch this debate.


I think i've found it. Or at least what bugged me about the whole thing.

Terrorism is defined as an act of violence or threat of violence.

Not all acts of terrorism are technicaly violent nor do they invlove the threat of violence.

Say some religious vigilantes from another nation sneak into the largest power plant our nation has and shut down the system. (And don't give me any crap about how better security would be needed. Kids sneak into government and restricted areas all over the world, whats to stop adults from doing the same?) This is technicaly terrorism. Non-violent, but still terrorism. If we don't have power, we don't function. The point of most terrorism is to disrupt daily life, get our attention and frighten us. So say this happens, Are we allowed to treat this as an act of terrorism, or do we just give them trespassing fines?

I have a point, i swear. i'm getting there.

So i think in addition to defining terrorism, you should better define what constitutes a terrorist act.

Caletor is firmly behind the current resolution at vote. We are proud to vote for it.

I have only one doubt: civilian casualties may happens during operations. Where is the border line between warfares and terrorism acts? I fear this resolution could be negatively used for the purpose to defame some rightful militar actions.
Although I'm "for" this resolution I invite you all to ponder at length about that.

I have only one doubt: civilian casualties may happens during operations. Where is the border line between warfares and terrorism acts? I fear this resolution could be negatively used for the purpose to defame some rightful militar actions.
Although I'm "for" this resolution I invite you all to ponder at length about that.
The borderline's here:
1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population.

I have only one doubt: civilian casualties may happens during operations. Where is the border line between warfares and terrorism acts?Intent.

Targetting a school full of children: Terrorism.
Targetting a military base where civilian contractors work: Warfare.

I agree that the resolution should be voted down and reworded. The resons are that the resolution does not go far enough. States should also be banned from using violence for policitical, religious or idealogical goals where the violence is targeted at civilians.

Therefore, I propose an amendment to paragraph 1 of the current UN resolution to replace the words "other than national governments" with the words "for the avoidance of doubt to include national, regional and supranational governmens". No further changes are necessary as it the use of terrorism "primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population" which is the subject of the resolution. "Civilian" is specifically defined to exclude members of paramilitary organisations.

VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION AND WE CAN HAVE A PROPER RESOLUTION RATHER THAN SOMETHING A SCHOOLBOY THREW TOGETHER IN A FREE PERIOD.

Instead we suggest the Resolution be amended so that nations that harbor known terrorists, that fail to execute or extradite known terrorists, terrorist financiers, and terrorist propagandists should be censured.

We suggest that the government of the Island of Ishtar re-reads the rules governing the actions of the NSUN _

The NSUN can pass resolutions.
The NSUN can reject resolutions.
The NSUN can not censure nations.

Firstly we have not yet had the privilege to welcome the Demdike delegation to the UN and wish to correct this oversight. Welcome.

Therefore, I propose an amendment to paragraph 1 of the current UN resolution to replace the words "other than national governments" with the words "for the avoidance of doubt to include national, regional and supranational governmens". No further changes are necessary as it the use of terrorism "primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population" which is the subject of the resolution. "Civilian" is specifically defined to exclude members of paramilitary organisations.

With regard to the honourable member’s comments, the issue of State sanctioned terrorism has already been raised. However considering this in itself is a very complex subject a separate resolution would be far more suited to handle this topic.

VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION AND WE CAN HAVE A PROPER RESOLUTION RATHER THAN SOMETHING A SCHOOLBOY THREW TOGETHER IN A FREE PERIOD.

While we respect the honourable member’s opinion we can assure them the current resolution was not written in haste or without the input of member states. The current document marks an important collaboration between member states to craft a carefully considered piece of legislation. Terrorism legislation has been discussed over several months and this is by far the most considered we have seen to date.

I would invite the honourable member to the view resolution within the confines of its definitions and judge it accordingly. It is our belief in this context the resolution indeed fulfils its purpose most adequately.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I would invite the honourable member to the view resolution within the confines of its definitions and judge it accordingly. It is our belief in this context the resolution indeed fulfils its purpose most adequately.


see, thats just it, your definitions need a little help. Terrorism isn't strictly violence or the trheat of.

The intent of terrorism is to induce fear in an audience (not its victims) in order to cause the audience (or its government) to alter its behavior.

(straight from websters-online, folks)

violence is not required. i seriosuly think this should be addressed. (see previous post)

Now, I'm just 13, and am not one of those stuck-up sociology proffessors from Cambridge, but what is terrorism? Many people say that revolutionaries, such as those in places like Cuba were terrorists, just because they didn't agree with the beliefs of the Superpowers. I voted for this resolution, but only so that I could stop the genocidal behaviour of things such as the 9/11 attack, which was wrong in millions of ways, but not so that I could bug my average people's phoneline like good ol' Bush l'Idiot is doing. Al-Quaeda is a terrorist group, but that doesn't mean that a group like Greenpeace, who hold different beliefs then American Capitalism should be considered terrorists. A line needs to be drawn between terrorism/activism, and not just be used as a word to justify sabre-rattling at countries that don't agree with you. That's all.

As self-professed religious extremists, We take exception to the intemperate statements of the representative of Greedandmoria. Indeed, as victims of state-sponsored terrorism from the likes of Omigodtheykilledkenny, We are painfully aware that terrorism is more likely directed against religious extremists than by them.We see the consummate victims have arrived, and right on cue.

Whatever imagined offenses against your nation for which you may indict this government, Nuncio, this debate is not about "state-sponsored terrorism" or the absolute martyrdom of religious extremists (irony intended); as previously stated, this legislation is about halting the slaughter of innocent civilians by extremist ideologues. Assaults such as this one (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=36) visited upon our nation not long after your nation was humiliated in the Kitten Revolution. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about the kidnapping and detonation of 25 innocent Antarctic natives, would you, Nuncio -- despite the fact that your ambassador to OMGTKK showed quite an interest in our natives -- for as we all know, you are ever the innocents, completely benign, and cute, and happy, and fluffy, and all that jazz?

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

I think i've found it. Or at least what bugged me about the whole thing.

Terrorism is defined as an act of violence or threat of violence.

Not all acts of terrorism are technicaly violent nor do they invlove the threat of violence.

Say some religious vigilantes from another nation sneak into the largest power plant our nation has and shut down the system. (And don't give me any crap about how better security would be needed. Kids sneak into government and restricted areas all over the world, whats to stop adults from doing the same?) This is technicaly terrorism. Non-violent, but still terrorism. If we don't have power, we don't function. The point of most terrorism is to disrupt daily life, get our attention and frighten us. So say this happens, Are we allowed to treat this as an act of terrorism, or do we just give them trespassing fines?

I have a point, i swear. i'm getting there.

So i think in addition to defining terrorism, you should better define what constitutes a terrorist act.

You raise a very interesting point. And I think you are correct.

However, as complex as the issue of terrorism is (believe me, it's more complex in my mind than most of the other people voting for this), I don't think having multiple Resolutions regarding the subject would be unadvisable. Now, to answer your question, we ARE allowed to treat this as an act of terrorism, as nothing stops us from having our own laws against non-violent terrorism. Remember, the soul of this Resolution is to deal with international, violent terrorism.

Perhaps a new proposal, a ban on non-violent acts of terrorism is in order? Draft something up and post it in the UN forum (but do not submit it). I'd be happy to help out, as I'm sure, would the authors of this Resolution.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Now, I'm just 13, and am not one of those stuck-up sociology proffessors from Cambridge, but what is terrorism? Many people say that revolutionaries, such as those in places like Cuba were terrorists, just because they didn't agree with the beliefs of the Superpowers. I voted for this resolution, but only so that I could stop the genocidal behaviour of things such as the 9/11 attack, which was wrong in millions of ways, but not so that I could bug my average people's phoneline like good ol' Bush l'Idiot is doing. Al-Quaeda is a terrorist group, but that doesn't mean that a group like Greenpeace, who hold different beliefs then American Capitalism should be considered terrorists. A line needs to be drawn between terrorism/activism, and not just be used as a word to justify sabre-rattling at countries that don't agree with you. That's all.

I am unfamiliar with many of the groups you have listed here, although America does sound like the well-known RL nation...

OOC: In general, most of us post as our nation's diplomats, in the NSUN. The real world doesn't actually exist, except as a handy mythology, or some grand, all-encompassing novel. If you are going to become a regular in this forum (welcome, by the way), then I would suggest differentiating between the real world (RL) and the Nationstates world (NS).

IC: The definition presented in the Resolution only includes groups of people who, without the blessings of any nation, target, and attack a civilian population. Activist groups who do not target and attack civilians are not considered terrorists by this definition. Insofar as this Resolution is concerned, the three definitions in the Resolution are all that matters. Everything else remains under the purview of the individual nations.

Activism -- the kind categorized by picket lines, protests, sit-ins, flyers, buttons, and bumper stickers -- is peaceful, and does not come under fire through this Resolution.

Activism -- the kind categorized by bombings, gunfire, kidnappings, and other such violent behavior that targets civilians and is not state supported or sponsored -- is violent, and likely uncalled-for. This is what the Resolution is attempting to put a stop to.

Welcome to the NSUN.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

We are swiftly becoming convinced that this debate is pointless. In stark contrast to the previous debate, which was at least mildly diverting, what with all the bullshit about the United States, George Bush and USA PATRIOT, most of this discussion has involved diplomats bitching about the proposal definitions. It's a topic we find terribly dull. There is no definition of terrorism, or international terrorism, that is going to please everybody, nor is there any one proposal that can definitively cover all forms of violence and terror, nor should there be. The purpose behind this document is to address a global evil posing an immediate threat to many nations of the world (specifically, extremist global terror networks), and to require all member states to take all necessary measures to combat it. That is all.

We will no longer take part in this discussion, unless some nation can come forward with some interesting commentary, or maybe point out some serious (and not merely semantic) flaw in this legislation, real or imagined, that doesn't make us want to nod over in our chairs.

We are nonetheless very encouraged by the direction of this vote, and if the trend continues, it is very likely we will reapply to the United Nations as a full member.

Thank you all for your time.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

We are nonetheless very encouraged by the direction of this vote, and if the trend continues, it is very likely we will reapply to the United Nations as a full member.

Thank you all for your time.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

We look forward to welcoming our Kennyite friends back to the UN within the next few days.

Sincerely,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Just a couple of points. I'll start with the shorter one.

I agree that the resolution should be voted down and reworded. The resons are that the resolution does not go far enough. States should also be banned from using violence for policitical, religious or idealogical goals where the violence is targeted at civilians.

Totally aside from the rather tangled web of language which would be necessary to make such legislation palatable to the general populace, I hope you realize that doing so would make it impossible for any government of any type (whether benevolent or malicious) to protect itself from any sort of insurgency or revolution. The populace rises up against the government, bearing arms to overthrow the current power structure. The government would love to do something to stop them, but alas, the UN has said no. Nor can their allies or neighbours step in to assist, as they are restricted by the same laws. So yeah, I guess we could completely ban any form of government violence, but within the confines of this proposal and its intent, such thoughts have no place. Swing and a miss. Strike One

Therefore, I propose an amendment to paragraph 1 of the current UN resolution to replace the words "other than national governments" with the words "for the avoidance of doubt to include national, regional and supranational governmens". No further changes are necessary as it the use of terrorism "primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population" which is the subject of the resolution. "Civilian" is specifically defined to exclude members of paramilitary organisations.

So, while you take no issue with the fact that this excludes the government's military and paramilitary groups, you feel that this resolution should cover the government's military and paramilitary groups. Right. Batter swings high. Strike Two

VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION AND WE CAN HAVE A PROPER RESOLUTION RATHER THAN SOMETHING A SCHOOLBOY THREW TOGETHER IN A FREE PERIOD.

Firstly, WRITING IN ALL CAPS NEITHER MAKES YOU APPEAR INTELLIGENT NOR IS IT MORE LIKELY TO MAKE PEOPLE FOLLOW YOUR ADVICE. IT'S JUST REALLY, REALLY, ANNOYING.

Secondly, this proposal has been worked on in a number of forms and forums by probably half of the regular vocal contributers to the UN over the course of the last 7 months or so. It is one of the best pieces of legislation that I, personally, have seen developed and submitted thusfar in my time in the UN.

Lastly, not only is the pathetic attempt at insult and derision at the expense of the primary author ridiculously unfounded and unwarranted, it only serves to show you for one who not willing to give the material at hand the proper consideration. In short: You're being foolish. Reconsider. Strike Three. You're Outta Here. New Batter!

Now for one slightly longer and less baseball oriented.

While we despise terrorism in all its forms, and commend any effort to destroy this state-sponsored evil, we must oppose this bill on fundamental principles.

If you can go so far as to say that you despise something, how can such hatred not parlay into your basic fundamental principles?

Let me first quote from the bill: <defining terrorism>
We feel this is far too broad a definition of "terrorism" and intrudes excessively into our jurisdiction and national sovereignty.

What? How? Where? Are we reading the same resolution?

On the rare occasion an Ishtarean citizen may use a bomb or a gun in an act of political or religious crime against fellow Ishtareans, we consider it entirely an internal police matter and we do not need, nor do we seek, UN meddling in our internal affairs.

Good thing we view it the same way and this resolution doesn't cover such instances then, I guess.

We certainly shall not permit UN bureaucrats to meddle with our justice system.

Good for you. There's too many UN gnomes running around anyways. Stick it to the man. Whaddaya mean, we are the man? Enough outta you, hit the showers.

Domestic terrorism is a purely an internal affair.

Agreed. Phew! That was easy.

This Resolution should concern itself only with international terrorism.

Good thing it does, then.

The language of this Resolution fails to distinguish between the two.

What? Wait right there for a second...


3. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, international terrorism as terrorism that is conducted, instigated, aided, or abetted by persons or groups from outside the borders of the nation in which it takes place;

4. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism;


One of us is confused, friend. I don't think it's me.

We feel the vague, watery language of this Resolution which fails to condemn the funders, perpetrators and idealogues of hate idealogy is essentially useless.

You mean aside from forbidding the funding of such groups, supporting the investigation, apprehension, and conviction of said individuals, and the suppression of such activities in your jurisdiction. What else would you have us do?

This clause is vague and insufficiently explained, for example how we do interpret "etc."

Interpret etc to be whatever your government feels is most appropriate given the specific circumstances surrounding whatever groups might be within your purview. This clause is left as vague as it is for the purposes of allowing governments to tackle these issues as they see fit. If, in your area, your nation feels it is a matter of poverty or education, you may direct your efforts to reflect that. If you feel that it is some other issue affecting the people, religious intolerance, racial clashes, epidemic disease, or whatever, then you can attack the problem with those things in mind. It allows us to hold on to our national sovereignty while working together to remedy an international scourge.

We do not interpret international terrorism to be caused by "poverty" and "inadequate ineducation." We believe it is created by poisonous, virulent anti-modern idealogies, often of a religious bent and funded by authoritarian regimes who attempt to turn internal anger outwards against imaginary enemies.

See above comment.

We further believe terrorists are enabled by lax, criminally negligent so-called democracies who in the name of "asylum laws" and "free speech" deliberately aid and abet hatemongers who then go on to encourage and create terrorism in third countries.

Once again, see above comment. If that is the major problem that you see, then that is the route you should follow to try to rectify the issue.

Instead we suggest the Resolution be amended so that nations that harbor known terrorists, that fail to execute or extradite known terrorists, terrorist financiers, and terrorist propagandists should be censured.

Well, to begin with, this resolution forbids the harbouring of such individuals, groups, and activities. Further, there are many who vehemently oppose such things as the death penalty or even extradition. Adding extra legislation into this proposal which would almost ensure its failure to pass would not help anyone combat terrorism in any way, be it peaceful or forceful.

Furthermore we suggest that in the principle of national self-defense, the Resolution must reiterate the principle of international law that it is entirely legitimate and legal for a victim of international terrorism to defend itself by any means necessary.

1) Where are such principles of international law to be found? I don't believe I have read them.

2) Self-defence, or national defence, as the case may be, would take you so far as preventing any terrorist attacks. It might possibly stretch as far as apprehending and imprisonning those who have participated in terrorist activities. Keep in mind that hunting them down and blowing whatever region (or nation or whatever that they might be hiding in) straight to hell is not self defence. It's taking an offensive if it's before they've engaged in terrorism, and retribution if such acts have already been perpetrated. I don't condemn either one of those options, but I wish to be clear on this point: Wishing to combat terrorism does not grant you the right to blow up the world.

Therefore the Republic votes NO on this proposal

Not that I understand why, but okie-dokie.

and urges all independent-minded nations

Yes. If you are truly independant-minded, do what this guy says.

to categorically reject this ineffectual

.....wait for it....
....CONDEMNS.....DECLARES.....MANDATES.....Criminalize.... Supress....Freeze....Refrain from support.....Deny refuge.....cooperate in suppressing international terrorism.....
yeah. Nothing effective about any of that language. Might as well put a bow on it and call it a teddy bear.

grandstanding

Justify that statement or retract it.

which, in the Republic's view, will do nothing to redress the crimes of international terrorism,

Except, perhaps, cause the UN to turn its attention to such a large issue and force its efforts towards limitting the potential power and restricting the effect of such groups, possibly even creating a kinder, gentler, safer UN where we no longer need to worry about someone crashing a helicopter into our parliament builings or a shopping mall.

but instead offers the ineffectual appeasers of terrorism

If the appeasers of terrorism were ineffectual, terrorism would not be an international issue worthy of UN attention.

a legal fig leaf

What the hell are you talking about? Which part of this does anything like that?

while turning a blind eye

Turning a blind eye would be doing nothing. This proposal is pretty far from nothing, especially considering the time and effort a great many put into it.

to their own complicity in supporting the violence.

In the nicest words I can possibly manage to use to inquire: Where the hell do you get off?!? You obviously know nothing of the primary author or those whom assisted them in their efforts in putting this piece of potential legislature together. To assume that you know anything of their intentions, understanding of the issues at hand, or anything of the nature is not only arrogant, but foolish.

We decline to even comment on the intitial, prejudical remarks that accompanies this resolution, except to comment that is the kind of language we might expect from a Rogue State.

Only going to further show your ignorance of the matter at hand and willingness to devolve to the level of name calling in lieu of anything constructive to say. In future, try to actually make at least one valid point somewhere in your post so you appear less of a troll.

Thanks.

Now for one slightly longer and less baseball oriented.


But we like baseball. It's one of our three national sports, along with football (OOC: soccer for those in the US) and buzkashi.

In guatemala the Pixil Indians are being persecuated and many live abroad for fear. Countries such as the US condone the actions and therefore this gets no coverage. The palestinians must also be allowed to defend their rights since the israelis took the land from them.

Then what about suppresion in african countries.

Thus gueriallas must be allowed aslong as they hit certain targets and thus some terrorism can be justified, as long as innocent people arent killed

.:sniper: :mp5:

If this goes through i may resign from the UN

The Grand Duchy is a young nation, and a relatively new member to the UN. We've been thoroughly impressed with the decorum, honesty, thoughtfulness, and fundamental respect demonstrated in UN debates, and between nations (There's a RL UN that could learn a thing or two in that regard, but I digress).

This debate has been far more impassioned, and clearly distressing to many, than any other we've debated so far since joining.

This is only understandable (I'll briefly mention again that this is obviously an equally impassioned and distressing issue at the RL UN).

In all days and ages, one man's freedom fighter is always going to be another's terrorist. This Resolution will be one of the most difficult to write and implement for probably a long time to come. And there will undoubtedly be abuses of the power contained within it. No resolution can ever be perfect, and a republican institution like the UN (I'll digress again, sorry, I mean republican the actual english word and not Republican the RL political party, which have nothing to do with each other) must accept its decisions as being flawed and well-meaning, and evolve over time to refine those decisions.

What we have here is well thought-out. It is well-intended. It limits its scope without being impotent. It is open to further debate and refinement. Above all, it is fundamentally concerned with protecting the lives of civilians, and increases UN member's abilities to prevent horrible crimes like genocide.

I could (as any member can, and some have) reject the proposal on the basis of inadequate definitions, or incomplete powers of law enforcement, but this would unnecessarily delay what is clearly needed - a united international co-operative effort to relieve many Nations' Citizens from being helpless and unprotected in the face of violence.

It will be expensive, and it will be problematic, as all international efforts are. Our personal political feelings, in this instance, must be given lower priority than the fundamental safety of the world's citizens.

If it is possible, then in the future we should develop an avenue for Grievance Hearings regarding assessments as to what constitutes terrorism in a given crisis. These Grievance Hearings could even extend to include individual UN violations, and be overseen by a rotating, randomly selected committee of UN members.

Even if that is not possible, we can't reduce terrorism without taking a fundamental early step - defining a means by which we can co-operate to prevent it. This Resolution adequately achieves that goal.

Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike
UN Ambassador

P.S.

Free New Seaforth Quote:
"What is Terrorism?
Now, I'm just 13, and am not one of those stuck-up sociology proffessors from Cambridge, but what is terrorism? Many people say that revolutionaries, such as those in places like Cuba were terrorists, just because they didn't agree with the beliefs of the Superpowers. I voted for this resolution, but only so that I could stop the genocidal behaviour of things such as the 9/11 attack, which was wrong in millions of ways, but not so that I could bug my average people's phoneline like good ol' Bush l'Idiot is doing. Al-Quaeda is a terrorist group, but that doesn't mean that a group like Greenpeace, who hold different beliefs then American Capitalism should be considered terrorists. A line needs to be drawn between terrorism/activism, and not just be used as a word to justify sabre-rattling at countries that don't agree with you. That's all."

Free New Seaforth ambassador, you're the most thoughtful 13 year-old I've heard of in years. Welcome to the UN, I think you've got a lot to contribute, and I look forward to it.

To put the bill through, the wording should first be changed to define terrorists as a person who intentionally kills innocent non military individuals. Then i would back the bill.

Also looking through passed bills, i see the child labour bill which is very confusing as it says that children cannot work with mines etc but does not define the age of the child. Does anyone else think we should change the age to 16. I am aware tho that we would have to repeal then reinforce the bill. I think this is worthwhile.

In guatemala the Pixil Indians are being persecuated and many live abroad for fear. Countries such as the US condone the actions and therefore this gets no coverage. The palestinians must also be allowed to defend their rights since the israelis took the land from them.

Then what about suppresion in african countries.

Thus gueriallas must be allowed aslong as they hit certain targets and thus some terrorism can be justified, as long as innocent people arent killed

.:sniper: :mp5:

If this goes through i may resign from the UN

This went up while I was writing my response, and I have to respond to it, and will breach RP etiquette to do so.

I agree that the Pixil, and other Central American decends of the Mayans, are suffering, but this resolution will have no effect on them, or any other Real World conflict. We're operating in an idealised Role-Play world, where we can actually do something about those problems in a Fantasy setting. Please don't feel the need to resign your UN membership over this proposal. I see you are relatively new, as the GD of Gilbert Pike is, so please, explore the possibilities before you decide.

As to Israel/Palestine, I too am sympathetic to the Palestinian people. It is important to remember, however, that Israel did not take away Palestinian lands, the International Community (via the UN) did. The threads of conflict in that region are enormously complicated, and extend from Israel and Palestine all the way up to the the UN, G8 and NATO. No one is going to solve that conflict with a Real World resolution or lack thereof. We're all heartbroken that the path to peace in the Middle East has become derailed. Many of my neighbours have friends and family they haven't heard from in weeks, and depression and anxiety abound. For many of us, role-playing theoretical solutions to the world's problems help relieve that anxiety.

But ultimately, we are here at play, and we should take our co-operative spirit of play with us into the Real World, rather than the conflicts of the real world into the world of Fantasy Role-Play.

Thanks, and sorry for breaching etiquette.

Gilbert Pike

Is there already a resolution banning non-international terrorism? I think this resolution is almost perfect and plan on voting for it; the only thing I do not like is that it applies only to terrorism from outside the borders of a nation. If a group was completely national, would this resolution cover it?

OOC: Gilber Pike, I love you!

Is there already a resolution banning non-international terrorism? I think this resolution is almost perfect and plan on voting for it; the only thing I do not like is that it applies only to terrorism from outside the borders of a nation. If a group was completely national, would this resolution cover it?
This is only about international terrorism that has been said many times. Maybe you should at least glance over what other people have said before posting.

If this goes through i may resign from the UN

Buh-byes!

In guatemala the Pixil Indians are being persecuated and many live abroad for fear. Countries such as the US condone the actions and therefore this gets no coverage. The palestinians must also be allowed to defend their rights since the israelis took the land from them.

Then what about suppresion in african countries.

Thus gueriallas must be allowed aslong as they hit certain targets and thus some terrorism can be justified, as long as innocent people arent killed

.:sniper: :mp5:

If this goes through i may resign from the UN

I'll keep this short.

0) The world does not need another Vietnam.

1) The USA is not the only nation in the world, don't blame it all on them.

10) Consider that, were some other nation to step in to help, every people that has ever been oppressed and ever will be will expect someone to come and save them instead of creating their own destiny for themselves.

11) While it is much easier to blame your ills on some other nation or culture instead of actually looking at the history of the situation, that just doesn't make it correct. Explained more fully below.

100) Whether or not the Israelis took the land from the Palestinians is more or less irrelevant. Some time long ago, it happened. Sure. The descendants of those people live there now. Taking the land back at this point is no less a theft of property as the original act.

101) What about suppression in African countries? Firstly, I think you mean oppression. Secondly, many of those nations are actually making headway into improving their situations all on their own. Having worked their way to freedom in such a way they will actually appreciate instead of taking it for granted as way too many people do.

110) (and back on topic and IC) Guerrilla fighters working towards the overthrow of an oppressive regime in their homeland are not covered by this resolution. The whole freedom fighter scenario will be ignored from here on out.

111) Threats of resignation from the UN rarely move anyone to any sentiment or action past Bagsying you office. (BTW - dibs)

This resolution will not allow a country to aid people to get back their freedom. Surely as self respecting citizens it is our duty to protect these people and aid them in any possible way.

If this goes through i may resign from the UN
I see... so does that mean resign temporarily to stop it changing your stats? or permatantly for no reason?

Also is that supposed to be a threat? Some person somewhere is going to resign oh my I am scared now.

This resolution will not allow a country to aid people to get back their freedom. Surely as self respecting citizens it is our duty to protect these people and aid them in any possible way.


As soon as a foreign government becomes officially involved in an extraterritorial conflict, for whatever reason, said conflict is no longer a matter of terrorism. As the resolution only pertains to acts and groups not sanctioned by a government, such discussion is irrelevant. What is relevant is wwhether or not you believe that groups should be allowed to target civilians for the purpose of pressuring the government.

EG - Mick McMack is a member of an hypothetical militant group we'll call the ERA. They operate out of country X to attempt to coerce changes in country Y funded by groups in country Z. Follow so far? This is an international syndicate.

Member of ERA, in an effort to pressure the government of Y, head out from their base in X using passports purchased from V with the money they received from Z. They enter one of the busiest shopping districts of Y and begin shooting the place up, killing 54 civilians and wounding dozens more. Not a single police officer or military type personnel was anywhere near the attack site at the time of the incident. These people were brutally murdered because the goverment, not the people, the government would not comply with the demands of this foreign group.

These are terrorists. They are international terrorists. They target civilians. They kill innocent people. This is not a difficult concept.

In theory what you say makes sense and yes this would be targetted. But it will also cover other issues. It is not a very well written piece of legislation. If your read properly, what i proposed was a better definition of the meaning of terrorist, which was persons who killed non military civilians for political or religious purposes. If that was in the legislation it would become a better law.

As soon as a foreign government becomes officially involved in an extraterritorial conflict, for whatever reason, said conflict is no longer a matter of terrorism. As the resolution only pertains to acts and groups not sanctioned by a government, such discussion is irrelevant. What is relevant is wwhether or not you believe that groups should be allowed to target civilians for the purpose of pressuring the government.

EG - Mick McMack is a member of an hypothetical militant group we'll call the ERA. They operate out of country X to attempt to coerce changes in country Y funded by groups in country Z. Follow so far? This is an international syndicate.

Member of ERA, in an effort to pressure the government of Y, head out from their base in X using passports purchased from V with the money they received from Z. They enter one of the busiest shopping districts of Y and begin shooting the place up, killing 54 civilians and wounding dozens more. Not a single police officer or military type personnel was anywhere near the attack site at the time of the incident. These people were brutally murdered because the goverment, not the people, the government would not comply with the demands of this foreign group.

These are terrorists. They are international terrorists. They target civilians. They kill innocent people. This is not a difficult concept.

Let me make sure I understand correctly. In your scenario, the ERA are terrorists and fall under the resolution. But if the ERA were connected to a government, either X or Z, they wouldn't fall under the legislation?

In theory what you say makes sense and yes this would be targetted. But it will also cover other issues. It is not a very well written piece of legislation. If your read properly, what i proposed was a better definition of the meaning of terrorist, which was persons who killed non military civilians for political or religious purposes. If that was in the legislation it would become a better law.

.........*sigh*


1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;


The only differences between what you are suggesting and what is actually proposed is that the proposed legislation doesn't cover government sponsored acts and the proposed legislation goes into more detail and will cover more instances of terrorism.

In the first part, it has been previously stated that government sponsored acts of "terrorism" would be better covered by other legislation pertaining to War Crimes, Rules Of Engagement, or something along those lines.

In the second part, terrorists will do more than just kill people. You can wound or cripple billions without breeching what you propose. What the proposal covers would include killing, threatening to kill, injuring, threatening to injure, maiming, threatening to maim, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Is there anything else, or shall we continue with your obvious failure at reading comprehension? I apologize if that seems harsh, but it's the first active statement within the body of the law itself past the preamble.

I'll keep this short.

0)
1)
10)
11)
100)
101)
110)
111) Threats of resignation from the UN rarely move anyone to any sentiment or action past Bagsying you office. (BTW - dibs)
First off, counting in binary, nice touch.:D Secondly, damn you, I was hoping to bagsy it at least long enough to see if there were any office supplies I could use. My assistant broke my stapler while I was on vacation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Let me make sure I understand correctly. In your scenario, the ERA are terrorists and fall under the resolution. But if the ERA were connected to a government, either X or Z, they wouldn't fall under the legislation?


At the point which ERA becomes a state sponsored group (a state-actor) officially recognized by said government, they would no longer be recognized by clause 1 of the proposed legislation. That government would obviously have to deal with whatever repercussions the actions of that group might incur. To use an example from the mythical land of RL, it would be as if Al Quaeda became the official Afghani Army. It lends some creedence to their cause with an official governmental tag on it, but said nation would be openning itself up to counterattacks and embargoes as a result of their violent acts towards innocent civilians. Ask the Kawaiians what it's like to have a hostile army setting up shop in your nation's capital.

My assistant broke my stapler while I was on vacation.
I told you, I didn't break it, the Gnomes did.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

First off, counting in binary, nice touch.:D Secondly, damn you, I was hoping to bagsy it at least long enough to see if there were any office supplies I could use. My assistant broke my stapler while I was on vacation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Tell you what, you can have the stapler if you can help me move in the new observa.....aaahh....entertainment unit we just picked up for the office.

When a nation no longer meets the needs of her people it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. No person or group of persons once in power will voluntarily abdicate power therefore force is sometimes necessary to secure the will of the people.

This proposal will pit this body squarely against ligitimate freedom fighters around the globe and make us partners with various despotic nations that seek to repress the freedom and rights of their people.

Who decides who is a terrorist and who is a patriot fighting for a ligitamate cause. Will it be put to a vote? Will various ideaologies compete each time we are to decide the matter?

If civilians are caught in the crossfire or civic targets such as a nations power grid are taken out even though it may have a ligitamate military purpose will the "rebels" then be concidered terrorist?

I am not argueing for terrorism...it is just that this proposal leaves the door wide open to abuse and will stifle the movement toward freedom of people around the globe.

Draconian Daffiness stands firmly in opposition to this measure and urges this body to do the same.

Terrorists!!! Lets send them to the 13 Colonies. :eek:

Whilst national policy is to oppose terrorist resolutions, I can't see anything wrong with this, so I'll exercise my ambassador's perogative and vote FOR.

But that could change. Depends if anyone can convince me the other way.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

When a nation no longer meets the needs of her people it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. No person or group of persons once in power will voluntarily abdicate power therefore force is sometimes necessary to secure the will of the people.

A sound political philosophy for national concerns. What of it?

This proposal will pit this body squarely against ligitimate freedom fighters around the globe and make us partners with various despotic nations that seek to repress the freedom and rights of their people.

Allow me to begin by saying that I can't believe I'm getting drawn back into this particular line of argument again. Freedom fighters, or indeed any who wish to throw off the chains of an oppressive regime under which they live, are not covered by this resolution. This work of legislation works solely towards tagetting those who act, or are funded, across international borders, and target civilians with the intent of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals. Those who fight against their own government in an attempt to free themselves from oppression are not under the auspice of the UN Couterterrorism Initiative.

Who decides who is a terrorist and who is a patriot fighting for a ligitamate cause.

The definitions that have been set in place for the purposes of this resolution more than adequately cover this. Try reading it.

Will it be put to a vote? Will various ideaologies compete each time we are to decide the matter?

Nope. The definitions are quite explicit and will do nicely.

If civilians are caught in the crossfire or civic targets such as a nations power grid are taken out even though it may have a ligitamate military purpose will the "rebels" then be concidered terrorist?

*sigh*primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;

Intent is at question. If you shoot at the tank and accidentally hit a civilian, no biggie (for this resolution). If you shoot at the civilian and hit the tank, you're in trouble.

I am not argueing for terrorism...it is just that this proposal leaves the door wide open to abuse

How? Where? Did you actually read the material in question?

and will stifle the movement toward freedom of people around the globe.

To put this simply. As simply as I can manage without regressing to neanderthal-esque pictoglyphs on a cave wall...

See Dick. See Dick sabotage a civilian passenger jet heading to another country so that it crashes into a major sporting event because that nation is run by infidel capitalist pig dogs. Sabotage that plane, Dick. Sabotage it.

See Jane. See Jane plant shape charges intended to take out high ranking members of the nation in which she lives in an attempt to help free her people from the sadistic dictator intent on enslaving them all. Blow that bastard up Jane. Blow him up.

Jane fights for freedom for her people against her own government. She's a freedom fighter and safe from worry should this legislation pass. Her kind are welcome....for now.

Dick attacks civilians to try to enforce his ideals on others through violence and chaos. Dick is a terrorist and will have to run and hide from the forces of every UN Nation should this legislation pass. Dick's kind are not welcome here.

We don't like Dick. We like Jane.

Now let's forget all this talk of who's a Dick or not, and focus on the actual proposed legislation. Please. I'm begging you. Seriously. At the very least, read the first two lines of the first post on the first page of this thread before continuing.


...


please

...

pretty please


Whatever.


Draconian Daffiness stands firmly in opposition to this measure and urges this body to do the same.

Good for you.

Terrorists!!! WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE.....SKIN COLOR? TELL ME, I WANT TO GET THEM NOW!!! :gundge:

Terrorists!!! WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE.....SKIN COLOR? TELL ME, I WANT TO GET THEM NOW!!! :gundge:

They're purple. Run along now, troll. :rolleyes:

"DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments"

Why exactly should governments be able to target civilians and terrorise populations for political aims and get off scot free?

They're purple. Run along now, troll. :rolleyes:

I am out to make a point. Once we have all the purple people together should we make them talk and then what!! :confused:

I am out to make a point. Once we have all the purple people together should we make them talk and then what!! :confused:

...

I got nothin' here. :D

Trolls are Terrorists!!! ......I am dead.

Ask the Kawaiians what it's like to have a hostile army setting up shop in your nation's capital.Point of personal privilege:

Whaaaaaaaa?! :confused:

"DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments"

Why exactly should governments be able to target civilians and terrorise populations for political aims and get off scot free?


You are reading things into this that are not there. That line reads as it does simply because this resolution is not targetting government efforts. State actors are more under the influence of whatever rules of conflict may exist at the time. This does not, can not, nor will it ever condone government sponsored acts of terrorism. It can also be reasonably assumed that any government that perpetrates such acts will have a great many nations who will respond with great prejudice directed at whomever instigated such underhanded reprehensible tactics.

Here I would like to point out that the incident cited by the Intangelonian deputy was carried out by a group which falls squarely within the definition of "international terrorists" under this proposal; therefore, any support, aid or comfort to that group, any group like it (or any member suspected of conducting terror-related activities for said group), would be forbidden; in addition, nations would be compelled criminalize all terror-related activities conducted on behalf of said group, punish all those acting on its behalf and freeze their assets.

This proposal is not intended to outlaw so-called "guerilla" tactics or dictate to nations what are and what are not acceptable forms of combat against uniformed military. Its purpose is to combat a specific form of terrorism being conducted across international borders, the purpose of which is to promote radical ideologies through the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Even so, the Federal Republic hereby condemns any suggestion that unprovoked assaults on peacekeepers are in any way a legitimate or acceptable form of combat.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State
Very good point. I have taken your argument as well as that of Norderia under advisement and shall return with the results of our Regional Debate shortly.

Upon further consideration of this debate both regionally and in this forum, my personal position has softened. However, my current desire to ABSTAIN (change from AGAINST) was overruled by my region. Greater Seattle's vote remains AGAINST. It appears it will pass without my regions six votes, however, so I will refrain from apologizing overmuch. Sorry.

Now then:

May I add to those arguing this resolution fully against it, the more I read it and the supporters' views, the more I see that most of the arguments against are making this resolution into more than it actually is. As I now see it, the resollution proposes to classify a kind of attack which has heretofore gone unclassified. Military and State actors have rules; internationally agreed-upon strictures for the behavior of soldiers or other military actors in combat and with regard to civilians.

The fairly recent and unique brand of violence present in terrorist attacks dedicated to doing the most civilian damage in terms of casualties and destruction has no such body of law attached to it. This oversight is being exploited in RL places like Guantanamo Bay where nobody is sure who's being charged with what, and for what reason or which crime many are being held.

A law in place here, esteemed colleagues, would allow for the further classification and assortment of war crimes perpetrators and for a standard of proof to be set up for prosecutions thereof.

I hereby urge and move that those working the hardest to support this resolution consider a follow-up designed to delineate a convention for dealing with those engaged in the type of warfare dealt with in this current resolution.

Thank you.

M. Jubal

By the way, OMGTKK, thank you for using the correct adjective for Intangelon (Intangelonian) in your brief. (When my delegation first arrived, an ill-timed sneeze caused out adjective to be "Intangelese" for the first six months.)

My nation, after its founding and inception, had a nationwide contest to select an adjective. While I'm glad that the more sedate and businesslike "Intangelonian" won (54% of the vote), some of the others were very...interesting:

Intangelate (in-TAN-jel-uht, in the mode of "commensurate")
Intangerine (after the fruit...nominated and fiercely supported by my nation's gay community, who still use it...and, curiously enough, makers of butter alternatives)
Intangible (nixed because it's already a word)
Intangelic (after "angelic", and favored by our scientific community, who also thought our flag should be as many digits of pi as we could fit in 20-point font in black on a white background)
Intangy (from the foodie community)
Intanginal (subtly off-putting and supported only by the Intangelon Amateur Gynecologist's Club)
Slimy (suggested by the opposition party)
Intangelary (gained early favor until it was discovered that a strip club in the capital had the name already, in the mold of "-ary" as "a place for")

Regardless, thank you.

M. Jubal

First off, counting in binary, nice touch.:D
Actually to count in binary, it would have been:
00000001
00000010
00000011
00000100
00000101
00000111
00001000
00001001
00001011
And so on.... It's actually possible to use your fingers to count up to 1,023.\


Nooooowwwwww, to everyone else who has been raising a point akin to this:
"DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments"

Why exactly should governments be able to target civilians and terrorise populations for political aims and get off scot free?
This here Resolution is about INTERNATIONAL, NON-STATE TERRORISM.

It sets up a code for dealing with INTERNATIONAL, NON-STATE TERRORISM.

It does NOT deal AT ALL with national terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism or freedom fighters!

That means it does not outlaw national terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism, or freedom fighters!

It also means (GASP!) that it does not encourage or even condone national terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism, or freedom fighters!

NO NO NO NO NO the definition is not bad!

NO NO NO NO NO it does not need to cover more!

NO NO NO NO NO it does not open the door for abuses!

Anyone who has been around long enough, or went and did the research knows how fervently I opposed the LAST Counterterrorism Resolution. Which means when a NEW Counterterrorism proposal was introduced, I paid a whole heck of a lot of attention to it. I combed through it, looking for disagreeable things. Hell, the 8th clause was added in large part because of my efforts in the last debate (I'm taking some, not all the credit. Humor me if I'm wrong). Believe me when I say, that this Resolution is not going to destroy the free world. If it does anything to the free world at all, it will be because some clumsy damn fool freedom fighter made an uh-oh and turned his or her otherwise legit organization into a terrorist organization.

So enough! Read the Resolution! Understand that the words said are exactly the words meant! Do NOT stretch the definitions of the words, because the language is PRECISE. Chewbacca was a Wookie and Gandalf is not waving a street sign in here!


Tommo the Stout wipes a bead of sweat from his brow and takes a sip of water, once again reclining into his hammock.

I think that speech would have been more effective if I'd stood up...


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

By the way, OMGTKK, thank you for using the correct adjective for Intangelon (Intangelonian) in your brief. (When my delegation first arrived, an ill-timed sneeze caused out adjective to be "Intangelese" for the first six months.)

My nation, after its founding and inception, had a nationwide contest to select an adjective. While I'm glad that the more sedate and businesslike "Intangelonian" won (54% of the vote), some of the others were very...interesting:

Intangelate (in-TAN-jel-uht, in the mode of "commensurate")
Intangerine (after the fruit...nominated and fiercely supported by my nation's gay community, who still use it...and, curiously enough, makers of butter alternatives)
Intangible (nixed because it's already a word)
Intangelic (after "angelic", and favored by our scientific community, who also thought our flag should be as many digits of pi as we could fit in 20-point font in black on a white background)
Intangy (from the foodie community)
Intanginal (subtly off-putting and supported only by the Intangelon Amateur Gynecologist's Club)
Slimy (suggested by the opposition party)
Intangelary (gained early favor until it was discovered that a strip club in the capital had the name already, in the mold of "-ary" as "a place for")

Regardless, thank you.

M. Jubal

I'd have thought it'd be Intangelonan, without the "i", since most adjectives that end that way are because the nations themselves have an "i" at the end. Telidian, Arridian, Norderian, whereas Gruenberg is probably Gruenbergan (or maybe Gruenbergi)...

Eh, not that there's a necessarily proper method.

"Gruenberger."

"Gruenberger."

Damn, I forgot "er"!

"Gruenberger."Gruenburger? Is that like Good Buger?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008OM8S.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS260_.jpg

Gruenburger? Is that like Good Buger?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008OM8S.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS260_.jpg

Kell Mitchell rocks... Awesomestyle...

"Welcome to Good Burger, home of the Good Burger, can I take your order?"

The good people of Phillippe are well aware and cognizant of the history of many nations in the current geo-political environment. Many of these nations today exist because they sought revolutions against oppressive regimes. A British parliamentatrian in 1776 might have called the American colonists "terrorists." The British parliamentarians might have called Indian nationalists "terrorists." It's clear that this resolution has the unintended (or intentional) consequence of diminishing the ability of an oppressed people to respond to oppressive regimes. It is our fear that supporters of this measure are unable or unwilling to recognize the plight of oppressed peoples.

The very concept of self-government and sovereignty is at the heart of this issue. A nation-state is the ultimate arbiter in telling the international community if a group is acting in a legitimate manner or if they are terrorists. How many nation-states will freely admit that a group of individuals has just cause to rebel? How many governments will open themselves to that sort of international scruitiny? The current situation with Chechnya is a prime example of this paradox. Clearly the Chechen people feel they are being oppressed and believe they have a clear right to rebel and establish their own country - because the Russian Federation disagrees, they are able to marginalize these individuals and brand them as "terrorists." This resolution asks each of us to agree with the Russian Federation and to passively or actively support their oppression of the Chechen people. This is but one example. Terrorism is a loathsome activity, but in some cases, a necessary evil for a people to utilize when they are seeking their independence and freedom. What other alternatives do they have? They have little to no access to the funds or weaponry required to fight a conventional conflict. They are marginalized or imprisoned if they seek peaceful and political methods. They're only recourse is to resort to the only avenues left open to them: terrorism. If a resolution must be passed, then we should pass one recognizing the status of these peoples and working toward a more peaceful answer to their situation, thus taking away the need for them to resort to violence.

The good people of Phillippe are well aware and cognizant of the history of many nations in the current geo-political environment. Many of these nations today exist because they sought revolutions against oppressive regimes. A British parliamentatrian in 1776 might have called the American colonists "terrorists." The British parliamentarians might have called Indian nationalists "terrorists." It's clear that this resolution has the unintended (or intentional) consequence of diminishing the ability of an oppressed people to respond to oppressive regimes. It is our fear that supporters of this measure are unable or unwilling to recognize the plight of oppressed peoples.


The British parliamentarians may well have called such actions acts of terrorism, and by the definitions given in this proposal, they would be 100%, completely WRONG. Under the given examples, fighting against an opressive regime ruling over your homeland falls under the freedom fighter category, which has already been dealt with and does nut fall under the purview of this resolution.

Thanks for coming out.

The good people of Phillippe are well aware and cognizant of the history of many nations in the current geo-political environment. Many of these nations today exist because they sought revolutions against oppressive regimes. A British parliamentatrian in 1776 might have called the American colonists "terrorists." The British parliamentarians might have called Indian nationalists "terrorists." It's clear that this resolution has the unintended (or intentional) consequence of diminishing the ability of an oppressed people to respond to oppressive regimes. It is our fear that supporters of this measure are unable or unwilling to recognize the plight of oppressed peoples.

I JUST Went through a whole rant about that! Would you bother reading more than just the "Reply" button before you say anything?

Seriously, it's good kung fu to read at the very least the first couple of pages and the last couple of pages of a thread like this. That way you would see if your concerns are, (as they are, in fact) unfounded, or answered.

The very concept of self-government and sovereignty is at the heart of this issue. A nation-state is the ultimate arbiter in telling the international community if a group is acting in a legitimate manner or if they are terrorists. How many nation-states will freely admit that a group of individuals has just cause to rebel? How many governments will open themselves to that sort of international scruitiny? The current situation with Chechnya is a prime example of this paradox. Clearly the Chechen people feel they are being oppressed and believe they have a clear right to rebel and establish their own country - because the Russian Federation disagrees, they are able to marginalize these individuals and brand them as "terrorists." This resolution asks each of us to agree with the Russian Federation and to passively or actively support their oppression of the Chechen people. This is but one example. Terrorism is a loathsome activity, but in some cases, a necessary evil for a people to utilize when they are seeking their independence and freedom. What other alternatives do they have? They have little to no access to the funds or weaponry required to fight a conventional conflict. They are marginalized or imprisoned if they seek peaceful and political methods. They're only recourse is to resort to the only avenues left open to them: terrorism. If a resolution must be passed, then we should pass one recognizing the status of these peoples and working toward a more peaceful answer to their situation, thus taking away the need for them to resort to violence.


Violence against the military does not a terrorist make. Period. Read the definitions in the Resolution.

lol - this posting is sixteen pages long and it's pushing 3:00 am here. My concerns may have been addressed, they may be invalid, but they are still my own. Any scintilla of doubt should be addressed, discussed, and potentially resolved. I've expressed my viewpoint - valid or not - and I'm curious to read more from those in favor of the resolution. LOL, which will probably require me to do a little reading sometime tomorrow.

The very concept of self-government and sovereignty is at the heart of this issue.

As INTERNATIONAL terrorism is an INTERNATIONAL issue, saying that it is a matter of sovereignty is just silly.

A nation-state is the ultimate arbiter in telling the international community if a group is acting in a legitimate manner or if they are terrorists.

Incorrect. The definitions given in the UNCTI will decide who qualifies as terrorist or not. Remember? Don't be a Dick. Be a Jane.

How many nation-states will freely admit that a group of individuals has just cause to rebel?

Completely irrelevant tangent to the matter at hand.

How many governments will open themselves to that sort of international scruitiny?

Considering that there are already a number of UN commitees that do noithing but monitor the activities of all member nations, this should hardly be an issue at this point, especially since this proposal doesn't create any such organization.

The current situation with Chechnya is a prime example of this paradox.

Alright. Who invaded this time? :P

Clearly the Chechen people feel they are being oppressed and believe they have a clear right to rebel and establish their own country

Good for them. And luckily UNCTI does nothing to stop the people from rising up against an oppressive regime to overthrow their own national government. This is something that you would already be aware of had you actually read the text of the proposal.

- because the Russian Federation disagrees, they are able to marginalize these individuals and brand them as "terrorists."

They could call them seven legged polka-dotted duck, but that doesn't make it true, nor will it make it any more likely that we will believe them.

This resolution asks each of us to agree with the Russian Federation

It really doesn't.

and to passively or actively support their oppression of the Chechen people.

Okay. It's starting to sound like you've actually read the proposal, but not in the right order. It kinda looks like somebody cut all of the sentences into their indivual words and let you try and figure out how to paste them back together. What the proposal actually does is forbid us from harbouring international terrorists or aiding and abetting them in any way. Doesn't say anything about how we treat oppressive regimes.

This is but one example.

Thankfully. It wasn't a very good one.

Terrorism is a loathsome activity,

In this we are agreed.

but in some cases, a necessary evil

And our short lived accord has ended before it ever had a chance to fully blossom.

for a people to utilize when they are seeking their independence and freedom.

Once more with feeling.... *cues the band*

Freedom Fighters Are Not Terrorists

What other alternatives do they have?

As this is not an issue that falls under the jurisdiction of this particular resolution, such tangents are unnecessary and counterproductive to furthering the debate.

They have little to no access to the funds or weaponry required to fight a conventional conflict.

Guerrilla warfare has worked wonders for many an oppressed people. Not an issue for this debate, though.

They are marginalized or imprisoned

By their own governments, yes, we know.

if they seek peaceful and political methods.

At least they get to live. Not an issue for this debate.

They're only recourse is to resort to the only avenues left open to them:

Electric Avenue?

terrorism.

Oh crap, I blew my throat on the last hollering. I'll try whispering for you. Maybe you'll catch it this time. freedom fighters are not classified as terrorists by this proposal. bringing them up is a waste of time

If a resolution must be passed,

Make it this one.

then we should pass one recognizing the status of these peoples and working toward a more peaceful answer to their situation,

Good God Why? This resolution is not intended to even begin to address their situation, so why mention them at all in the body of the law? There are Terrorists out there, man. We'll worry about the downtrodden of the world with some other proposal.

thus taking away the need for them to resort to violence.

Violence is rarely a necessity for the creative, intelligent, and patient individual. Violence more often results as it being the easiest way to draw attention to themselves. That's universal, whether they are terrorists, guerrilla warriors, tyrannical overlords, or whatever. Give Peace A Chance, but Keep Your Piece Just On the Off Chance.....

lol - this posting is sixteen pages long and it's pushing 3:00 am here. My concerns may have been addressed, they may be invalid, but they are still my own. Any scintilla of doubt should be addressed, discussed, and potentially resolved. I've expressed my viewpoint - valid or not - and I'm curious to read more from those in favor of the resolution. LOL, which will probably require me to do a little reading sometime tomorrow.

Just go back one page and look for the post with the big blue letters. That should do it for ya.

I'm at 3:00 AM too, so I'm outie here.

Edit: And actually, this one is probably better: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11414813&postcount=213

lol - this posting is sixteen pages long and it's pushing 3:00 am here. My concerns may have been addressed, they may be invalid, but they are still my own. Any scintilla of doubt should be addressed, discussed, and potentially resolved. I've expressed my viewpoint - valid or not - and I'm curious to read more from those in favor of the resolution. LOL, which will probably require me to do a little reading sometime tomorrow.

Or you could have just waited until the morning and finished reading it before posting at all. Mighta saved us all some time.

Hon... the whole point of the United Nations and thus, this online game, is DIPLOMACY. It's rather tacky to pick apart someone's argument. You're unlikely to persuade them to your point of view and will just end up pissing them off, and potentially other people who find such an action equally offensive.

Actually, the point of a DEBATE (which is what this) is exactly to pick apart the arguments of the opposition. It is a time honoured tradition hearkening back to the days of

"is too"
"is not"
"is too"
"is not"
"is too infinity"
"go suck a lemon"

So... take a chill pill - the good people from Phillippe will cheerfully provide you with one...

Advocating drug use on the debate floor is somewhat frowned upon.

and allow a little dissent from your opinion, despite how wrong-headed you may think it to be.

Dissent and differing opinions are happily tolerated. A woeful failure to actually read the subject matter (or at least comprehend what has been read) is rarely accepted in these waters.

It's quite possible I could have realized the error of my thinking tomorrow and rescinded my (potentially inaccurate) statements.

Which is why it probably would have been wiser to wait until morning and actually familiarize yourself with what you are attempted to argue against.

And what would it have cost you to bite your tongue and be nice?

Depending on the individual, dignity, self respect, a good night's sleep, a moment of joy at seeing the semi-coherent ramblings of the semi-informed stripped apart. Not all of us derive joy from allowing the illusioned to remain so. Some of us feel that there are certain harsh realities that should be impressed upon those who wish to engage in this nature of debate. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Nothing. And you might have even persuaded me to your line of thinking, if you had taken the time to frame a more persuasive argument instead of picking apart my own.

The arguments FOR the our side are clearly laid out in the actual text of the proposal. Until those are refuted, there is little cause to add to them. When someone presents a fallacious argument, however, we will do our level best to ensure that such flawed logic is not allowed to go unchecked, risking the spread of such babbling into the minds of the undecided. What you were offering as counter argument against this proposed bill is something that is clearly defined and covered in the first post of the first page of this thread. It seems very much, at that point, that you had not bothered to even read what you were arguing against. That is something many of us will not stand for, especially as there are already enough who DON'T read the text and we end up having to fend off the same spurious arguments over and over and over again. It's frustrating.

Don't take it personally. It's simply the way most of these debates work. Best advise available, be sure of what you are posting before you click submit. Or at the very least, give us a disclaimer that you aren't sure if the points you are about to raise have already been covered.

All that being said, civilty in the face of sudden antagonism is commendable. I wish I had that kind of patience. Good on ya.

Fortunately for the good people of Phillippe, the Council of Elders sent an emergency white chocolate mocha iced latte to the beleagured UN delegate. In other words, out of chagrin from my esteemed and honorable colleagues previously posted comments, I just spent the past hour carefully reading the discussions concerning this resolution. All sixteen pages.

First let me say this. The Federation of Phillippe has been in existence for some time now, yet we only recently joined the United Nations. Our reluctance stemmed from having resolutions that we vehemently disagree with enforced upon us if we found ourselves in the minority during voting. This particular resolution is a prime example where we found ourselves in the minority on an issue on which we have particularly strong feelings. However, when we became a nation with a population over a billion people, we felt it incumbent upon ourselves to become active participants in the United Nations and international community despite the potential threats to our valued and highly prized principles.

Regarding the resolution... I have to say that the arguments I found the most convincing did not come from the authors (at least I don't think they are individuals who collaborated in this effort), but in reluctant supporters, specifically Dancing Bananland and Gilbert Pike. I can now see that this resolution was indeed a pain-staking effort of compromise (a clarity given to me by statements from Norderia, Kivisto, and Karmicaria). Though it is not perfect (and you will not got that concession from me), it is not quite the bugaboo that the people of Phillippe previously believed it to be.

Therefore, with a degree of reluctance, we will change our vote to be "in favor" of this resolution. Furthermore, I will make my position known within my region in the hopes Scandinavia's UN Delegate will change his vote as well. Again, it's clear a great deal of effort and compromise went into play for this document to be created. And at the end of the day, I do abhor violence, particularly against innocent civilians.

On an unrelated note to the resolution, but related to this debate... I will leave my previous postings up as a reminder to myself to make a more careful and thorough reading of a debate before wading into it, and hopefully a reminder to others to not make the same mistake. I still strongly urge the supporters of this resolution to exercise more diplomacy and civility in the future when addressing opponents or potential converts. lol - as my mama always said "You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar."

Thanks for the lively debate. I look forward to participating in more of them. I did Model UN in high school and as an undergrad, though I find myself somewhat rusty from a few years of inactivity, thus I apologize for thoroughly floundering my debut appearance before this august body.

You raise a very interesting point. And I think you are correct.

However, as complex as the issue of terrorism is (believe me, it's more complex in my mind than most of the other people voting for this), I don't think having multiple Resolutions regarding the subject would be unadvisable. Now, to answer your question, we ARE allowed to treat this as an act of terrorism, as nothing stops us from having our own laws against non-violent terrorism. Remember, the soul of this Resolution is to deal with international, violent terrorism.

Perhaps a new proposal, a ban on non-violent acts of terrorism is in order? Draft something up and post it in the UN forum (but do not submit it). I'd be happy to help out, as I'm sure, would the authors of this Resolution.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

i'll work on the non-violent acts of terrorism resolution proposal, even though i feel it should be treated the same as violent terrorism, but for the sake of THIS resolution, I just believe this:

4. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism;


should be reworded because "all acts" implies every kind of international terrorism, not purely the violent.

should be reworded because "all acts" implies every kind of international terrorism, not purely the violent.Aside from the fact that it can't be reworded (without having the vote fail, rewriting, and re-reaching quorum), that phrase doesn't deal with non-violent terrorism. All the clauses in the Proposal are bound by the internal definitions.

Aside from the fact that it can't be reworded (without having the vote fail, rewriting, and re-reaching quorum), that phrase doesn't deal with non-violent terrorism. All the clauses in the Proposal are bound by the internal definitions.
I am throroughly put in my place. grazi for the clarifications

We believe that Banifish raises an interesting point. I don't want to chastise the authors of the resolution for not considering this. I also freely admit that there may be previous resolutions speaking to this point as well... but... as one can observe in the RL environment, there ARE other forms of terrorism aside from acts of violence. The resolution does speak to funding, and perhaps its intent may speak to this as well, but what about eco-terrorism? Cyber-terrorism? Terrorist cells could easily poison an environment or use electronic means to wreck devastation on individuals or even a nation's economy through theft or vandalism.

Again, I freely and openly admit there could be other resolutions speaking to these forms of terrorism and the UN's response to them or the current resolution speaks to it, BUT in the case there are not, then the Federation of Phillippe (perhaps joined by Banifish ) would encourage the collaborators of this resolution - or other interested parties - to draft a resolution that would address these potential and probable forms of terrorism.

We believe that Banifish raises an interesting point. I don't want to chastise the authors of the resolution for not considering this. I also freely admit that there may be previous resolutions speaking to this point as well... but... as one can observe in the RL environment, there ARE other forms of terrorism aside from acts of violence. The resolution does speak to funding, and perhaps its intent may speak to this as well, but what about eco-terrorism? Cyber-terrorism? Terrorist cells could easily poison an environment or use electronic means to wreck devastation on individuals or even a nation's economy through theft or vandalism.

Again, I freely and openly admit there could be other resolutions speaking to these forms of terrorism and the UN's response to them or the current resolution speaks to it, BUT in the case there are not, then the Federation of Phillippe (perhaps joined by Banifish ) would encourage the collaborators of this resolution - or other interested parties - to draft a resolution that would address these potential and probable forms of terrorism.

Environmental and cyber terrorism would be carried out, normally, to cripple civilian operations or to create situations (i.e. poisoning the environment) where the health and well-being of civilians is severely threatened. I think this would qualify as terrorism under the existing definition, although it's an interesting point of debate.

If it was targeted at the national hierarchy for means of national liberation, as conforming to the strictures of this resolution, then it wouldn't be terrorism, but (to use that happy phrase) "freedom fighting".

And now for something completely different. Kivisto's remarks on page 16 got me thinking: Is it the duty of the authors and proponents of a resolution to prove its worth or is it the duty of those opposing it to discredit it. Sort of like "presumed innoncence" or "presumed guilt". Which one do you all think it should be?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

And now for something completely different. Kivisto's remarks on page 16 got me thinking: Is it the duty of the authors and proponents of a resolution to prove its worth or is it the duty of those opposing it to discredit it. Sort of like "presumed innoncence" or "presumed guilt". Which one do you all think it should be?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Damn. And here I was hoping for a man with nine legs.

But seriously, I don't think either presumed innocence or guilt is the best way to go. I think it's the responsibility of both sides of a resolution debate to make a good case for their position.

so I'll exercise my ambassador's perogative and vote FOR.

But that could change. Depends if anyone can convince me the other way.


Been taking lessons from Senator Sulla, have you? ;)

I still strongly urge the supporters of this resolution to exercise more diplomacy and civility in the future when addressing opponents or potential converts. lol - as my mama always said "You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar."

It's probably fortunate that you didn't see the debate when the previous version of this idea was submitted...

Terrorism sucks big time. Yes indeedy. And the great region of the Lands of Storm and Darkness wish to reassure you all that when the apocalypse comes and Storm and Darkness spreads across the world, that days of terrorism - and warfare, too - will be over.

The people of all nations shall be humbled by their recruitment as minions to our dark empire, and differences of opinion shall be outlawed. Therefore debating this issue and voting on it is pointless, as the world as you all know it will surely end, very, very soon; to be replaced by a better, more prosperous world order for the rest of time.

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!