NationStates Jolt Archive

International stability act
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Daressalaam

Description: The government has the right to listen and record any call

or message transportation that is between one country and

another for use in finding terrorism, black marketing,

drug trade etc..


The government must encrypt infrmation though after use so none can ever be documented after a standard set time of two weeks. The information during that time is privately classified and can only be copied for federal court evidence, all evidence after such case must be destroyed, or will violate the victims free will.

This does not give the government right to listen and

record any message throughout ones country without a valid

permit from the region or ruling presider of country.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jan 28 2008

Ummmm.....

Considering the fact that many UN memberstates (including the Holy Empire of Imota) have laws that allow wiretapping with warrants and disallow it without, this proposal is rather pointless.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations, Holy Empire of Imota

Apparently you haven't taken the time to read through the previously passed resolutions, because if you had you'd have realized that your idea contradicts resolution #10 Stop Privacy Intrusion (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029598&postcount=11).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Now, I'm going to give you some advice that will prevent you from ever submitting an illegal proposal ever again. That advice is, before you submit a proposal to the list, post it in the forum.

As much as we would hate this proposal, we would counter Fibblites' idea that Stop Privacy Intrusion actually does anything. It merely 'proposes' nations to pass laws stopping wiretaps, meaning that nations are free to ignore such a resolution.

Hence, this proposal is still legal.
---Dr. Bob.

Dear Dr Bob,

No.

As much as we would hate this proposal, we would counter Fibblites' idea that Stop Privacy Intrusion actually does anything. It merely 'proposes' nations to pass laws stopping wiretaps, meaning that nations are free to ignore such a resolution.

Hence, this proposal is still legal.
---Dr. Bob.

Dr. Bob, as far as I'm concerned your argument holds about as much water as a bucket with 42 holes in it. Back when that resolution was written, resolutions we're written as airtight as they are now. Obviously the author was proposing that nations pass laws against intercepting communications without evidence of a planned or committed crime, and when the resolution passed they had to do it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"The problem is, Bob Flibbles, I made that same argument against the 'Metric System' Repeal currently proposed by Doruia. It hinges on the basis that the proposal does nothing by merely 'proposing' a switch to the Metric System. I told Doruia what you told me, that the resolution has an effect because of what happened in the past, but then it was figured that even though that may be the case in the past, today is a far different 'era'. The same argument that I am using against Resolution #10 is the exact same argument by Doruia, and I thought that if Doruia's argument was persuasive and accepted by the active community on this forum, then it should be applied to other areas too.

If I am proven wrong, then I apologize for the error, as what you said before is what I previously believed and argued for. But it seems there is a huge debate over the usefulness of the resolutions, and if the loophole-seeking nations of today use the term 'propose' to mean 'I can ignore it', then lots of resolutions would be rendered invalid. If there is conterversy over what a resolution means, then that bodes ill for the UN."
---Dr. Bob

As much as we would hate this proposal, we would counter Fibblites' idea that Stop Privacy Intrusion actually does anything. It merely 'proposes' nations to pass laws stopping wiretaps, meaning that nations are free to ignore such a resolution.

Hence, this proposal is still legal.
---Dr. Bob.

Ah, finally, something I might know about. Well, you're wrong. This was figured out in our draft of a repeal of Resolution 10 based on the same language. It was later determined by rules analysts and secretariat members that the aforementioned language was not at fault. Thus the repeal was invalidated until we found another justification for repeal.

~Dr. Jules Hodz,
UN Delegate and the suchlike
From some region you've never heard of