NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to publicize my new proposal I decided to post it her to0. So take a looksee!

Terrorist Detainment Act
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: AnorexicHeroinAddicts

Description: To ensure that the world is as safe from terrorism as possible, nations MUST have certain powers to detain suspected terrorists for as long as needs be.

In the interests of human safety, I propose that all nations within the UN be given the right to stop and arrest individuals who they believe have a suspected link with terrorist groups.

I propose that the police be allowed to search buildings and areas that could have salient information regarding future terrorist actions WITHOUT a warrant.

I propose that individuals who have been arrested on the grounds of a suspected link with terrorism be detained for as long as needed, rather than having a certain limit to their interrogation.

I maintain that individuals detained under the proposed act must not be afforded the same legal rights as individuals who have been arrested for other offences. This is to guarantee that they have no contact with the outside world and therefore cannot communicate with their terrorist cell/organization or other terrorists.

Well my darlings, If you agree with it please go ahead and back it!

Thankyou x

propose that the police be allowed to search buildings and areas that could have salient information regarding future terrorist actions WITHOUT a warrant.

I propose that individuals who have been arrested on the grounds of a suspected link with terrorism be detained for as long as needed, rather than having a certain limit to their interrogation.

I maintain that individuals detained under the proposed act must not be afforded the same legal rights as individuals who have been arrested for other offences. This is to guarantee that they have no contact with the outside world and therefore cannot communicate with their terrorist cell/organization or other terrorists.

We fear that terrorists will be tortured and innocents will be arrersted so we rject this resolution.

Whilst Gruenberg would ICly support a measure, I'm not in the OOC habit of supporting illegal proposals. And from my reading of Habeas Corpus, Due Process, etc., this is illegal.

We are very concerned about the threat of terrorism to nations of the NSUN and think it a crying shame that this Assembly has so far refused to take action against it. But we could not support this proposal. We believe that the rights of individuals must sometimes be limited in order to provide for the safety of all, but only when that is demonstrably necessary. Even leaving aside its obvious illegality, this proposal goes much too far.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well People! If you want to get things done you've got to be a bit extreme! And anyways...what's all this talk about legality? We create the law so my proposal isn't illegal it's just plain immoral. But morality gets people nowhere. If we want to survive we have to destroy the threat by all means possible

And anyways...what's all this talk about legality?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

ooc: And on the national front...it depends.
If you followed the UK debate on this several law lords said despite the sovereignity of Parliament they were prepared to do the unthinkable - strike down such an Act as contrary to the higher rule of Natural Justice.
So if you give your Judicial reviewers enough powers they'll change them and acquire powers where none existed before and you could find yourself in a sticky situation.

This goes too extreme. Innocent individuals could be abused through this proposal. Police power could be corrupted as well, with terrorism as the stated reason.

These circumstances are the exact reason why I wrote Habeas Corpus. No citizen of a UN country can be held without being charged for longer than 48 hours. As long as Habeas Corpus stands, this proposal will be illegal.

Jeez, looking at that thing you might as well add "BELEIVING That nations should be able to do whatever they want without regard to the rights of it's citiczens" and be done with the rest. Imagine yourself an ordinary citiczen, just minding your business when somebody asks you what you would do about some polotical situation, you reply jokingly about using a bomb...then suddenly a bunch of guys drop down on you and throw you in a jail cell for the rest of your life wihtout a trial. They then proceed to trash your house and terrorize your friends/family looking for evidence to tie you to other terrorists, they find some letters to friends with an "arab" last name, and they go and but into their house. When your arab friend resists, not knowing what's going on, they shoot him.


That is pretty much what this proposal would allow to happen in nations all over the world if it was passed, excluding that natiosn that would misuse it to imprison polotical dissidents that, despite having a different opinion, never hurt anybody.

OOC: Guetanamo Bay is, IMO, a sign the terrorists are winning. So long as we revoke all rights and remove all checks on justice, so long as we have left our principles behind, the terrorists have won.

I say they're winning, not that they have won, because this error can be reversed.

OOC: Guetanamo Bay is, IMO, a sign the terrorists are winning. So long as we revoke all rights and remove all checks on justice, so long as we have left our principles behind, the terrorists have won.

I say they're winning, not that they have won, because this error can be reversed.

OOC: I can see why they may detain certain individuals and not make public their names or details of why they have them. Main reason is to do so would possibly alert terrorists of what we know about them.

How would you like to be an agent in a terrorist group who got in based on fact you know somebody? All of a sudden NBC ABC CBS and all the other worlds news groups reports this person is being put up in Hotal Guetanamo Bay by Uncle Fidel all funded by Uncle Sam.


IC: It may taste, smell, feel, and look like dog crap but to get rid of it somebody has to get a shovel and maybe step in it thus mess up their shoes! Else we will be eating, smelling, blinded by, and up to our arse in dog crap. So what is worse a dirty pair or shoes or? You can clean off the shoes provided your still living and healty enough to do so.

No Right to Laywer

No charge

No trial

Held indefinitely

Let's see.......

This puts the US in the same league as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

I could stand a press ban. I would understand that completely. However, to hold them indefinitely with out right to fair trial or any real rights whatsoever, that's just bloody sick.

The only good note is at least they seem to be well treated, but the press ban makes it so that we can't confirm this. Certainly, incidents elsewhere leave questions about the treatment in Guatanemo Bay - especially when one considers that the Iraqi Prison scandal included the guy who formerly was in charge of Guatanemo Bay.

Sorry, I don't buy this.

No Right to LaywerSo you ban press how many lawyers are terrorists or support them?

No charge1) Illegaly in a country 2) Possission of illegal weapons 3) And who needs to know what other information might be known that got them where they are.

No trialMilitary Tribunals are not same as a civilian trial and we are at 'WAR' with terrorist not trying to catch them jaywalking.

Held indefinitelyOnly until we have learned what we might keeping them where they are. Also until they have served sentences for crimes convicted of.

Let's see.......Again security of who one might have could mean saving lives tommorrow with information learned placing agents in terrorist groups to learn more on them based on the absence of that person who is said hiding some place.

The very fact in real life that information got out of Iraq prisons shows how easy it would be to disrupte an ongoing action to gain information on terrorists. They don't play by our rules they make up their own according to what works against us.

Our legal system here is suppose to protect our citizens from our enemy.. that being terrorists.

The LAW must extend equally to everyone, or the terrorist has already won, by dragging us down to thier level.

Daemonyxia votes against the motion.

Vote no to guantanamo

Do it

So you ban press how many lawyers are terrorists or support them?

1) Illegaly in a country 2) Possission of illegal weapons 3) And who needs to know what other information might be known that got them where they are.

Military Tribunals are not same as a civilian trial and we are at 'WAR' with terrorist not trying to catch them jaywalking.

Only until we have learned what we might keeping them where they are. Also until they have served sentences for crimes convicted of.

Again security of who one might have could mean saving lives tommorrow with information learned placing agents in terrorist groups to learn more on them based on the absence of that person who is said hiding some place.

The very fact in real life that information got out of Iraq prisons shows how easy it would be to disrupte an ongoing action to gain information on terrorists. They don't play by our rules they make up their own according to what works against us.

Our legal system here is suppose to protect our citizens from our enemy.. that being terrorists.

Hooray for 'ought' constitutions.
How many G.Bay prisoners have gone onto be charged with terrorism and imprisoned in a proper gaol? How many have been released without charge?

State of war....hahahahahaha. Sorry, apparently the uk has been in one since September 11th. I mean now is so different from the IRA years - it just means Blair gets to get away with more HR restrictions. Ask any Brit 'do you think we're in a state of war?' and they'd say no.

The legal system is a two-purpose system. Justice and public policy/protection.
Oh and information ellicited by torture is not permissable in a court of law.
And everyone knows how great the intelligence service is.:rolleyes:

There's what the public wants and there's what they need. 'Shoot to kill', 'indefinite detention', 'torture', 'withholding simple HR'...none of these have a place in civilised society. People want the death penalty, they'll never get it here.

Remember, there's a reason G.Bay is in Cuba.

Okay, okay, this isn't General. Let's try to keep it IC. Yes, cases such as Guantanamo Bay were my inspiration for writing Habeas Corpus (which renders the proposal at discussion illegal), but there's more to discuss here than debate specific RL politics.

IC: Screw the legality of this proposal

Y'know, there's an interesting thought process one has to go over here.

Several members are calling for action regarding terrorism - stating that it is a situation that plagues ALL nations. Considering the vast complexity of the UN, this means that no matter what the technology level, no matter what your standing is at the global level, no matter how much you've invested already into combatting terrorism.

Terrorism
still
exists

This is a rather important observation when we need to move to the consideration of wars, POWs and detainments of such.

1) POWs are often held because while you remain at war with their commanders, they could rejoin the battle and wreak more havoc upon you. Now, this seems to follow the same logic as terrorist suspects, but there's a slight catch: they will still be fighting you even if all their commanders are dead. Why? Because it's a political statement, an act of defiance, to commit a terrorist attack. It's basically the ultimate form of protest. Does this justify it? No. We outlaw most violent protests (while welcoming peaceful demonstrations) so a more powerful violent protest would be even less welcome. However, it is a protest. A POW isn't protesting against your nation. Heck, half the time they don't entirely know why the war is being fought. They are fighting on behalf of their nation. They are fighting because they are ordered to. They don't care about your nation, they care about their own.

2) Wars are finite. Lengthy, perhaps, but finite. The "War against Terrorism" is not. Why? Again, because terrorism is a form of protest. You could have a "War against Terrorist Cell 3579C" or "War against the Nolak Clans" or "War against the Anti-Gruenberg Alliance" (why you'd want to fight the latter.....absolutely beyond me) and those would be finite - because you're fighting a group, not a method. And again, when you defeat Cell 3579C, the Nolak Clans, or the AGA, your war would be over and you should be releasing your prisoners. However, they're still terrorists and they're still trying to make their protest known. Hence, they should be sent through the justice system, not treated as a POW. If you send them through the justice system, you can hold them, you can rehabilitate them (if that is your goal), you can proactively deal with the continued threat that they pose to society and you can do it without pretending there's still a war going on.

3) A lot of times, these people are plucked out of your own nation - within your own borders and by local law enforcement rather than military. Normally, that's only done for POWs when the state is in a position of total war. Yet, with very rare exceptions to when the terrorist group is an actual military threat to your nation and therefore you're actually fighting real battles rather than small skirmishes, the economy hasn't been shifted over to total war, the populace hasn't moved to "we'll accept less goods so we can have victory", the War Measures Act or whatever other nation's equivelents are haven't been activated. In essence, you're working with Total War policies within Limited War scopes

And often with your opponent being "Terrorism" rather than "Terrorist group".

Nope, not seeing your arguments.

"War against the Anti-Gruenberg Alliance" (why you'd want to fight the latter.....absolutely beyond me)
Because you are a communist anti-goat infidel!

Death to the infidels!

Oh and information ellicited by torture is not permissable in a court of law.How many dead terrorists have ever been tortured to get information from then that would be used in court? Let one go on the local news and tell us all about how bad they treated him or her.

And everyone knows how great the intelligence service is.:rolleyes:You will never know what is being done because if you did then chances are it failed to do what it was suppose to do. Or there is more ongoing gathering of information.

There's what the public wants and there's what they need. 'Shoot to kill', 'indefinite detention', 'torture', 'withholding simple HR'...none of these have a place in civilised society. People want the death penalty, they'll never get it here.One will never know what may be going on to protect citizens from their own selves in any nation. As for a civilised society.. when you deal with a rabid dog you don't treat them like your healty family pet.

Remember, there's a reason G.Bay is in Cuba.Yes and there is a reason prisoners in Iraq should be turned over to their government and thus let them deal with them. If the Iraq government is ever going to be able to stand on it's own it must take charge of it's own criminal elements and deal with them on it's own.

One will never know what may be going on to protect citizens from their own selves in any nation. As for a civilised society.. when you deal with a rabid dog you don't treat them like your healty family pet.
Seeing we eradiated rabies and then quarantined all animals entering the country, treating the sick, I think you've got yourself a shot in the foot by that allegory.

And everything is subject to the law. Nothing can be kept secret forever. The executive might get powers from the law, but they can't overreach those powers.

Dead men tell no lies. They also have family.

It used to be that people campaigned for animals not to be shot for a suspicion of biting someone, as humans would not be treated so unfairly.
Travelling the wrong way.

Suspicion is a vague concept, rumour runs rife, evidence is sparse. It was enough to kill hundreds for witchcraft, and under this proposal, enough to shut people away for as long as the executive likes.

OOC: This terrorism thigns reminds me of the Macarthy '50s. Where everybody was afraid of Russian "commies" and the theory of communism to the point where fre-speech was crushed, and anybody so much as expressing an appreciation for the fine points of communist ideals (not theory or government) was thrown into jail. Nowadays instead of commies we have more elusive, and more terrifying "A-rab" suicide bombers, who instead of simply destabilizing government blow themselves up in crowded buildings. Will we again then, see another MaCarthy, with another Un-American activities comitee? More unfair arrests, and public suppression, more Tein-Amen squares and more people beating on hippies? The mind shudders and the skin crawls...

IC: Although illigal, this proposal gives evidence of a certain, disturbing mindset in leaders and citiczens around the world that security against phantom and nameless "terrorists" is all encompassing, and above such rights as freedom of speech, religion etc... those rights which we strive to protect in the first place. This is not merely wRONg. It is oxy-moRONic.