NationStates Jolt Archive

recently, both i and my partner introduced a repeal to the "prevention of terrorism" resolution and it will soon pass and become law. Meanwhile, we have worked on a replacement for the flawed resolution hopefully adequately addressing the problems mentioned in our repeal. here it is:

The World Assembly,

REALIZING of the importance of expanding and improving international co-operation among WA States, on a bilateral and multilateral basis, which will contribute to the elimination of acts of international terrorism and their underlying causes and to the prevention and elimination of this criminal scourge,

RECOGNIZING terrorism as a major threat to the lives and well-being of civilians and non-combatants;

CONDEMNING the loss of life and harm that result from terrorist acts;

NOTICING the principle of the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under rogue regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national and regional liberation movements, in accordance with the World Assembly,

RESOLVING to address the danger of international terrorism, to protect the civilian populations of member states;

A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.

B) DEFINES “civilians”, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, or police."

C) DEFINES “terrorist(s)” as a person or persons whose acts fall under the definition of “terrorism”.

D) DEFINES “terrorist act(s)” as an act committed by a person falling under the definition of a “terrorist” whose cause is to achieve social, political, or religious ends through violence knowingly targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

Hereby states:

1) REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation.
(a)This shall include, but not be limited to, making it a criminal offense to conspire, aid, abet, fund, plan or carry out acts of terrorism across international borders. Member states shall prosecute those who violate such laws to the fullest extent possible within their nation.

2) BANS WA member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

3) REQUIRES member states to freeze, or otherwise take control of without undue delay, any and all assets of terrorist individuals or organizations within their jurisdiction which may be used to support international terrorist acts, including but not limited to: equipment, facilities, and funds.

4) URGES member states to coordinate counter-terrorism activities, and share information and intelligence on individuals and organizations that practice terrorism, to combat its spread on an international level.

5) STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member states to do everything possible to address the underlying causes of terrorism within their borders, including but not limited to: poverty, racism, inequality or indoctrinated hatred.

6) CONDEMNS the use of terrorism by any member state of the World Assembly and

7) HEREBY REQUIRES any member nation employing terrorism to immediately cease and desist.

Author: The Altan Steppes
Co-Author: Wachichi

the author and presenter of this legislation is The Altan Steppes, but i am the one who posted it up to the forum, so i decided to name both the Author and Co-author. in the actual resolution, only the co-author will be mentioned as the Author will be already mentioned automatically.

the replacement for when the prevention of terrorism is repealed.

President Hatan of the People's Republic of Nimtiam bids me give the following response to this Act as proposed by the honorable delegate from Wachichi.

The People applaud the commendable efforts of the Alten Steppes and Wachichi in creating legislation dealing with such a difficult topic while maintaining freedom for each individual country. We recognize that dealing with terrorism is of utmost importance and the Government of Nimtiam will do whatever it can to prevent the spread of terrorism between its borders.

However, at the present time we cannot support this legislation because of various factors.

A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants. (emphasis added)

It seems to the People that the terminology "non-state actors" give exception to nations from the entire purpose of this legislation. It is important to recognize that nations can be terrorists in much more harmful ways than any smaller group.

In light of this we request that "non-state actors" be changed to "any party" and that the following language be added.

6) CONDEMNS the use of terrorism by any member state of the World Assembly and
7) HEREBY BANS any member state which employs terrorism or terrorist acts. (These sections may of course be added into the Act at a point which makes the most organization sense to the honorable delegate from Wachichi)

B) DEFINES “civilians”, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, or police."

We likewise request that in section (2) the words "non-state actors" be changed to "any party".

In the view of the People's Republic, and in view of the history of our nation, it is important that government officials of the nation be included in the exception from terrorism. Far more than the armed forces, it is the government that leads them that is responsible for atrocities against an oppressed people and the World Assembly must recognize actions against those individuals as legitimate fights for the freedom of a people.

Finally, while we wish that section (5) did more to require member states to work against these causes, we understand that this Act is not the place for that. Thus, we only request that "ENCOURAGES" be replaced with "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES".

The People's Republic of Nimtiam looks forward to working with Wachichi and the Alten Steppes as well as all other member nations of the World Assembly to improve this Act.

Your proposed clause 7 is illegal. But your other points are valid.

Apologies. Amend clause 7 to read,

REQUIRES any member nation employing terrorism to immediately cease and desist.

thank you for all you help and i would love to work with you all on another proposals. any thing else?

I'm afraid that I have to flatly disagree with the representative from Nimtiam. I don't think that it's remotely useful to include nations in the definition, because the sorts of acts we're talking about are normally referred to as "War" (or "High Collateral Espionage" if you're being kind). Yes, nations may do atrocious things, but you have the advantage of knowing where their capital city is. With terrorists, one of their big advantages is that you don't know where they are.

We agree with the Gobbannaen position and respectfully disagree with our Nimtiam colleague. Non-state actors were who we chose to address, because as Ambassador Coch points out, acts such as this between state actors (i.e. nations) are acts of war, in our estimation, rather than terrorism. For example, if a nation (say, Ourneighboristan) committed an act of violence against us, the Altan Steppes would consider that an act of war by said nation and respond accordingly. Terrorism is not quite the same thing.

For that reason, we would prefer to see the language concerning "non-state actors" restored as originally written in the definition. However, we are willing to consider leaving the new clause 7 in the revised proposal as a hopefully acceptable compromise.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

With all due respect to the ambassadors from The Altan Steppes and Gobbannaen, in Nimtiam's view acts against non-combatants are terrorism even if committed in the process of war.

We do realize, however, that collateral damage is a fact of life. Perhaps the other nations would consider language that defines acts designed to be against non-combatants solely (with the definition of combatants as we proposed earlier) as terrorism, with an exception for acts which are against a legitimate target but involve collateral damage (with urging to restrict collateral damage as much as possible).

Would this be acceptable?

While we have some sympathy with the position of the respected Ambassador for Nimtiam ultimately we must agree with noble Ambassador Coch that this resolution should probably not deal with acts of terror committed by states as opposed to those committed by so called "non-state actors".

This is because we along with many other nations ( we imagine ) would wish to reserve the right to use a different order of remedy for such acts of state terrorism, hopefully in time this organisation will see fit to legislate for the laws of war and when it does we would expect such legislation to deal with acts of terror committed by states.

Further to this we should say that our position is animated by the belief that states and individual persons have different rights and different responsibilities. Balancing the competition between the rights of the state and the rights of the individual is a frequent requirement of this organisation. In this particular case the consequences of states or individuals not living up to certain responsibilities lead to very different outcomes and have radically different ranges of remedy, the ranges of remedy being significantly great to need separate consideration in separate statutory implements. The consequences to this resolution of treating states and non-state actors as comparable would be deeply undermining to its possible effectiveness and utility.


sincerely,

With all due respect to the ambassadors from The Altan Steppes and Gobbannaen, in Nimtiam's view acts against non-combatants are terrorism even if committed in the process of war.

We do realize, however, that collateral damage is a fact of life. Perhaps the other nations would consider language that defines acts designed to be against non-combatants solely (with the definition of combatants as we proposed earlier) as terrorism, with an exception for acts which are against a legitimate target but involve collateral damage (with urging to restrict collateral damage as much as possible).

Would this be acceptable?

We really don't mean to be a stick in the mud about this, but unfortunately, we simply cannot accept the inclusion of state actors in the definition of terrorism. Terrorism and acts of war, in our opinion, are two different things entirely. When you begin muddying the waters by including acts of war committed by state actors, we cannot help but feel that the chances of such a resolution successfully passing a vote would be greatly hindered, if not ruined altogether.

We would wholeheartedly support, and even help with, authoring a proposal to address the problem of indiscriminate acts against civilians by state actors in times of war. But that is entirely beyond the scope of anti-terrorism legislation, and we maintain that it would be better addressed as separate legislation.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

quite an enthusiastic debate. i thank you all and will make the changes for the majority and in favor of the author as co-author.

One minor quibble remaining: the spelling of our nation's name is incorrect in the currently posted version. We're glad to see the definition revert back to its original form, however.

The People's Republic of Nimtiam will vote for the resolution as currently stated as better than not at all. Can we count on the Altan Steppes and Wachichi to support a proposal to prevent acts of war against civilians if one should be proposed?

yes, only if and after this proposal is estblished though

Can we count on the Altan Steppes and Wachichi to support a proposal to prevent acts of war against civilians if one should be proposed?
As one of the other people arging against you, I'd happily support a proposal on war crimes if it's good enough. Given that you've already demonstrated that the subject is full of bear traps, you'll have to excuse me for not making a binding promise on something that hasn't even been scoped yet.

This is an excellent piece of legislation and will recommend my region, small as it is, to support this measure, as it is currently written. I too would also like to see the issue of state to state acts of terror that target civilians tackled on another measure and not in this one.

Excellent work by the respected Ambassadors of Wachichi and The Altan Steppes on this legislation and may we extend our sorrow in not seeing more support for Wachichi latest Education attempt.

When will the WA Counterterrorism Act be proposed so that our WA delegate may give his support?

We hope to present this as soon as possible. We have to get the repeal through first though. Any assistance with TG'ing or otherwise boosting the chances of the repeal would be greatly appreciated.

And for the record, yes, the Altan Steppes will be honored to support a proposal addressing acts of war against civilians.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

we'll propose this just as soon as we're done with the repeal of the resolution in the first place.

There seems to be a disparity between definitions A and D - whilst I can accept terrorism can be the intentional targeting of civilians (or even the collateral targeting of civilians as outlined in definition A - although I think there is a case that can be inevitably made that muddies the waters somewhat by employing the phrase "freedom fighter"), there seems to be a suggestion in D regarding terrorist acts could also include the unknowing target of civilians.

There seems a disparity between a terrorist being aware of a risk of loss of life to civilians and unknowingly placing civilians at risk of loss of life.

You could make it a lot less difficult by just stating Terrorist acts are acts practised by those to further the aims of terrorism, or just remove it outright, since you mention terrorist acts in definition c anyway.

I think definition a is as solid as you can expect to make it, so let that deal with the majority of the sticky definition issue, and get rid of D as it appears to undermine it.

i'll consider the changes.

made the changes though few.

until some issues are resolved for me on a personal level i guess the author the Altan Steppes will introduce this piece after the repeal.

We'll wait until you're free to introduce the repeal and help to get that approved for quorum. Once the repeal is successful, I'll go ahead and introduce this.

thank you. my regional troubles for now have ended and will work on the repeal asap.

Good day to everyone.

His Most Holy Royal Majesty of the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisition compels me to pose a question on a section of this proposal as put forth by the noble delegates of Wachichi and the Altan Steppes.

His Majesty takes great interest in section 4 of the proposal and asks whether or not it would be possible to form an international committee or board so as to better coordinate intelligence efforts between nations regarding terrorism? As it stands currently, His Majesty fears that the proposal, if made into a resolution, may be repealed on the basis that this section in particular seems broad and vague.

His Majesty awaits a reply to his question and sincerely apologizes as to the late hour the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisitions has entered into this discussion.

Furthermore, His Majesty has left specific instructions that the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisitions will back this measure entirely.

Her Holy Grandmaster of the Security Intelligence Judiciary has posed question on whether this 'proposed' international intelligence board would have any legal power at all?

Her Grandness has noticed that currently any international law enforcement agencies are 'illegal', and yet the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisition is proposing an international agency that has the potential to go far beyond than that of 'law enforcement'

There was a resolution concerning to establish an international criminal registry. As I recall it was shot down as it was illegal. Thus, it is our nation's belief that even with the passing of this act, it will become a lame-duck.

As of the act itself, our ruling council sees no otherwise, 'flaws' within it. The Golden Griffin sect has been totally annihilated within our borders, only a few still lingers along the borders, seeking eternal damnation.

Her Holy Grandmaster of the Security Intelligence Judiciary has posed question on whether this 'proposed' international intelligence board would have any legal power at all?

Her Grandness has noticed that currently any international law enforcement agencies are 'illegal', and yet the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisition is proposing an international agency that has the potential to go far beyond than that of 'law enforcement'

There was a resolution concerning to establish an international criminal registry. As I recall it was shot down as it was illegal. Thus, it is our nation's belief that even with the passing of this act, it will become a lame-duck.
OOC: It wasn't "shot down as illegal", as I recall, it was dropped by the author who'd fallen under the impression that it would be illegal. Giving any WA agency 'police powers' (i.e. an enforcement role) is against the rules, yes, but agencies intended purely for handling data on such subjects are fine... Indeed, the WA's precursor actually had an agency (called 'ICPIN' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12864221&postcount=212)) for that purpose...

There was a resolution concerning to establish an international criminal registry. As I recall it was shot down as it was illegal. Thus, it is our nation's belief that even with the passing of this act, it will become a lame-duck.

As the author of that resolution, I can assure you that is not why it was shot down. It was shot down as being ineffective and is being reworked from the ground up to create a proposal that better meets the topic at hand. The closing of that discussion itself was a case of a mistake in communication, and it can be reopened at a later date (once a new draft is ready).

What was illegal was your own suggestion that it be a stepping stone to creating an international police agency.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Her Holy Grandmaster of the Security Intelligence Judiciary has posed question on whether this 'proposed' international intelligence board would have any legal power at all?

Her Grandness has noticed that currently any international law enforcement agencies are 'illegal', and yet the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisition is proposing an international agency that has the potential to go far beyond than that of 'law enforcement'

There was a resolution concerning to establish an international criminal registry. As I recall it was shot down as it was illegal. Thus, it is our nation's belief that even with the passing of this act, it will become a lame-duck.

As of the act itself, our ruling council sees no otherwise, 'flaws' within it. The Golden Griffin sect has been totally annihilated within our borders, only a few still lingers along the borders, seeking eternal damnation.




Indeed the International Criminal Register was not illegal merely impractical.
International law enforcement cooperation is not illegal as far as we are aware.

yours e.t.c. ,

on the topic of this committee or board or registry, whatever you wish to call it. how about i include it's creation. and it will serve as a 'bridge' between nations to better correlate anti-terrorism acts within the international community. so if for example, a wanted terrorist is located in another country, they could use intelligence and this committee to help work together to capture the terrorist.


any objects. the details will be placed in the resolution once we've adequately agreed to it's creation in the first place.

We are, in principle, willing to support an addition to the proposal which would allow for creation of an agency to facilitate exchange of intelligence and information between nations to counter terrorist activities. Such an agency would not be illegal, since it would not grant the WA any kind of enforcement powers. However, if other nations are planning to introduce legislation to re-create an agency like the previously mentioned ICPIN, we wonder if creating such an agency focused on terrorism as well might be needlessly duplicative.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

well, that's the thing about this committee. it would only be used for intelligence and connecting anti-terrorist efforts with each other so nations can work better together. i believe it says that nations should work together to fight terrorism. so this way, we create a way for them to work together in a better environment.

I seem to have forgotten what I have proposed myself. For this I owe the people involved an apology.

Nevertheless, our nation supports this act wholeheartdly

Amabassador Constandinos Koukidis

His Majesty agrees that the committee or board would not be a regulatory agency but an easier way for nations to communicate regarding the coordination of terrorism efforts, or, in the words from the delegate of Wachichi, as a "bridge" between nations regarding terrorism.

His Majesty thanks all honorable delegates for the discussion and supports the proposal wholeheartedly.

Altan Steppes,

if someone was thinking or recreating some former terrorism agency, then THEIR efforts would be duplicative because this measure would have already passed. we would have already established an agency to deal with terrorism in the first place.

repeal almost passed. only time before this is proposed.

I am bumping this thread as this is the proposed replacement I will be submitting in the event that the repeal of "Prevention of Terrorism" is successful.

is this going to be the final form once the repeal is passed?

While we're certainly open to further discussion, this is most likely what I will be submitting for the replacement once the repeal passes. I honestly don't see what further changes can or need to be made.

I can also see no further adjustments needing to be made. i just wanted to make sure i was looking at the final draft. Our Kingdom will support this measure.

thank you. i hope the repeal will pass. all delegates need to talk to their representees to get them to vote FOR the repeal. thank you

Wachichi

Upon discovering the Counterterrorism Act, the Republic of Arkena now supports the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Resolution, and finds the Counterterrorism Act an excellent substitute.
-----
Thanks for putting this together, you guys. I was going to vote against the repeal because I figured a flawed terrorism law was better than no terrorism law. But after finding this, my fears are diminished. Hopefully everyone else who would vote against the repeal finds this *crosses fingers*.
What have you guys been doing to get the word out about this?
-Gregg Nux

well, when it comes to getting the Repeal to reach quorum in the first place so that it would go up for vote, my partner and I went on a massive TG campaign to promote it and swing delegates to approve it. we got the approvals and now it's up for vote.

now the repeal is up almost 2-1 approved! i've talked to delegates urging their constituency to vote for it. as for the WA Counterterrorism act? not much, we're waiting on the repeal to pass otherwise we can't introduce this.

we plan on going on a TG campaign again for it's Replacement. but we'll post it up here in the forums for additional changes if necessary.

i wanted to know if i should have included on the top of this resolution, that this would be the official replacement to the Prevention of Terrorism if it's repealed. should i put that up? it might help bring attention to it.

Wachichi

i wanted to know if i should have included on the top of this resolution, that this would be the official replacement to the Prevention of Terrorism if it's repealed. should i put that up? it might help bring attention to it.

Wachichi

I wouldn't do that. The resolution itself shouldn't mention the previous legislation. And once the replacement is up for approval, a TG campaign should be sufficient. The version of the replacement currently up is what I will be submitting without changes, unless someone comes up with a really compelling argument otherwise before the repeal passes (assuming it does).

There should be a clause in the preamble clarifying that this act only affects international terrorism, or terrorism committed "across borders," and not strictly domestic terrorism, which is the province of individual nations to confront. It may preempt the old "one man's terrorist..." argument.

I agree with the above opinion. The Act could definitely see more clarification and specificity. Not much, because it's pretty good as it is.

Voting ends on the repeal this... Saturday? I'll see what I can do to help out between now and then. I'll come back to this forum regularly.

-Gregg Nux

There should be a clause in the preamble clarifying that this act only affects international terrorism, or terrorism committed "across borders," and not strictly domestic terrorism, which is the province of individual nations to confront. It may preempt the old "one man's terrorist..." argument.

Would something along these lines satisfy the Kennyites?

RESOLVING to address the danger of international terrorism committed across national borders, to protect the civilian populations of member states;

I agree with the above opinion. The Act could definitely see more clarification and specificity. Not much, because it's pretty good as it is.

Voting ends on the repeal this... Saturday? I'll see what I can do to help out between now and then. I'll come back to this forum regularly.

We will definitely appreciate the help.

Would something along these lines satisfy the Kennyites?


Honoured Ambassador, we have encountered this form of words before in a resolution and indeed were asked to include it in work of our own before, but the boundaries which separate one state from another or indeed from the world in general are " International " in nature and "national" borders or boundaries are those which exist to delineate different regions and provinces within a state.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I believe the honored Urgenchi ambassador is referring to what we would call "internal borders", i.e. state, provincial etc.

National borders, in our understanding, are the borders of a single nation. Something that crosses the border from one nation to another then becomes an international issue. That is the reason we used the phrasing we chose. If someone can think of a better way to put it, though, we're open to suggestions.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

I believe the honored Urgenchi ambassador is referring to what we would call "internal borders", i.e. state, provincial etc.

National borders, in our understanding, are the borders of a single nation. Something that crosses the border from one nation to another then becomes an international issue. That is the reason we used the phrasing we chose. If someone can think of a better way to put it, though, we're open to suggestions.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador


Honoured Deputy Ambassador whatever one's understanding of the word "national" the word "International" is the correct term for borders which separate nations from eachother. The prefix "Inter-" meaning "between" , therefore boundaries "between" nations are "inter-national" in nature.

But whatever form of words may be arrived at the international lawyers of Urgench will doubtless comprehend the honoured delegation of the Trilateral Federation's intention and make decisions accordingly.

yours e.t.c. ,

Either Irina and I don't understand the Urgenchi ambassador or the Urgenchi ambassador didn't understand the text. If the latter is true, this is an example and proof that the Act may need a more extensive vocabulary section. Define what terrorism is, what an international border is, etc.

Obviously that's why this was written in the first place, but it seems there's still improvement to be made.

-Gregory Nux

EDIT: Urgenchi ambassador! You speek in riddles my friend! I have to read what you say several times to understand your meaning! Hahaha!

Either Irina and I don't understand the Urgenchi ambassador or the Urgenchi ambassador didn't understand the text. If the latter is true, this is an example and proof that the Act may need a more extensive vocabulary section. Define what terrorism is, what an international border is, etc.

Obviously that's why this was written in the first place, but it seems there's still improvement to be made.

-Gregory Nux

EDIT: Urgenchi ambassador! You speek in riddles my friend! I have to read what you say several times to understand your meaning! Hahaha!


We are suggesting , honoured Ambassador, that the wording of the phrase in question should be - "RESOLVING to address the danger of Terrorism which is committed internationally, to protect the civilian populations of member states; " .

We hope that is somewhat more perspicacious for the esteemed Ambassador.

...

RESOLVING to address the danger of terrorism, which is committed internationally, to protect the civilian populations of member states;

...

E) DEFINES "international(ly)" as the adjective or adverb which would define the inter-nation border that would have to be crossed by a non-state actor to commit acts upon a nation to which he/she is not citizen to

...
-----
You can never have too much specificity!

Thank you for your help, Ambassador, surely I could have read back further and more carefully, but your patience is still appreciated.

I hope my addition to the vocabulary is helpful to the Act.

-Gregory Nux

...

RESOLVING to address the danger of terrorism, which is committed internationally, to protect the civilian populations of member states;

...

E) DEFINES "international(ly)" as the adjective or adverb which would define the inter-nation border that would have to be crossed by a non-state actor to commit acts upon a nation to which he/she is not citizen to

...
-----
You can never have too much specificity!

Thank you for your help, Ambassador, surely I could have read back further and more carefully, but your patience is still appreciated.

I hope my addition to the vocabulary is helpful to the Act.

-Gregory Nux


Indeed one can have far too much specificity honoured Ambassador. In this case the word "internationally" is the most appropriate word and has a clear meaning which does not need definition for the purposes of this resolution. That is exactly why we suggested the wording we did.

W.A. statutes must be as clear and concise as they can be, endless definitions of terms do not in fact aid this aim. The wording we have suggested would aid this aim.

Yours e.t.c. ,

i must say that the ambassador from Urgench does make a good point, and i would urge my partner Altan Steppes to NOT make that change till more deliberation is done.

I don't quite understand what is meant by international terrorism. When the act of terrorism is committed, it's commited within internal lands and laws. NOT UNDER INTERNATIONAL TERRIRTORY.

most of this proposal already specifically deals with efforts to reduce terrorism across country lines, however, terrorism can still be done within a territory toward the same people and nation.

should we not have something that applies to that kind of 'internal terrorism"?

Wachichi

oh wait, i just had an epiphany. by restricting the resolution to 'international terrorism', we don't get the WA too involved in the inner problems and struggles of nations. AAAH!! good thinking. Altan Steppes, i'll add the phrase to this copy here though i must know where and how you placed it in the final draft so i can correctly and accurately fix it here in the forums for others to read.

TG me the preamble so i can make the changes, thank you.

Wachichi

okay i updated it to it's final version which will be presented on Sunday.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but does Article 7 contradict the nation issue on terrorism? I haven't had it for a loong time, but one can choose to allow terrorism within one's nation, nyet?

I've never chosen that - it's always been the peaceful concord and understanding route for Minyos.

If this resolution reaches quorum, then passes at vote, does this mean that WA nations will no longer get that game issue?

If they do not, then Article 7 makes sense. Except for that fact that the WA has no real power to enforce the "cease and desist". However, I somehow suspect that all nations will receive that game question still, WA or not.

Perhaps it would have been better worded as an adjunct to aiding and abetting international terrorism - nations involved in such must cease and desist. As far as I read it, if terrorism is kept within a nations borders, and not exported, that should resolve the game issue conundrum.

Well-written proposal by the way. I'm not endorsing it, for no specific reason, but I'm not opposed to it. I see potential for abuse of what individual nations could construe as terrorism (falsifying evidence etc in some of our, shall we say, less democratic nations simply because a group opposes the ruling elite), but I know the proposal assumes impartiality, not corruption. Hmmm...possibly a tad idealistic that! I'm sure it will reach quorum without my endorsement.

I only started playing again today - don't jump down my throat! I'm not being a Johnny-come-lately smartarse, I literally only started being active again today. Just been signing in every now and then to keep my nation active for months. Noticed the Article 7 game-issue and wondered.

I guess if there is a duality here, it'll just be another NS anomaly - like the old nation description "Crime is on the increase. Crime is totally unknown" Had that a number of times...

Resolution text is roleplay, issues are gameplay. You can answer issues in all sorts of ways contrary to the text of resolutions, and it's not illegal. Likewise, you can write resolutions with no care for how nations might answer their issues later.

well, no resolution passed can really be enforced. but we do it anyway.

Wachichi

this resolution is still lacking support (21 short). is there a way to extend the voting time or will it have to be resubmitted?

Unfortunately, unless it picks up more approvals soon, it'll need to be resubmitted. I've been fielding a few objections from delegates and trying to address them as best as I can to convince them to change their minds, but it does not look good right now.

My offer of help still stands, though I'd strongly advise asking before submission!

We also offer our help with a TG campaign. lets get this passed.

The help of our Atanatari and Gobbannaen friends would be appreciated greatly. I'm considering resubmitting the proposal this coming weekend. Would that work for everyone?

actually, this weekend would be great for me. we should divide up our list of delegates to telegram in between the four of us.

Wachichi

The help of our Atanatari and Gobbannaen friends would be appreciated greatly. I'm considering resubmitting the proposal this coming weekend. Would that work for everyone?

Fine by me. What pages would you like me to do, and do you have a TG template or are you willing to risk my idea of tact?

what is your idea of tact? we have a long list of a couple hundred active delegates.

the lists may be overlapping but it's still effective. what's your plan ambassador?

Wachichi

I think Wachichi and I should use the lists we had again; we should send everyone else those lists to make sure that people don't get TGd twice. We can also begin sending TGs to the delegates listed on the WA page. If you wanted to start from the beginning from that list while some of us work from the middle and the end, Gobby, that would probably work well. We do have a TG we've been using, but I think we can trust you. :p

Just FYI, I'm currently leaning towards submitting this either on Saturday or Sunday so that I have more time to TG for it (weekdays are harder with work). Is there a preference as to which day I resubmit it?

i offer my help this weekend. I will be happy to help with the tg campaign. i can work the WA list if you'd like. I would also prefer a template to send if it could be sent to me that would work?

I'm a bit busy during the day on Saturday, but I'm in the UK so that may not be an issue as regards timing.

weekend is good for me. The Altan Steppes, will send us all the link to the voting page for proposals once it's submitted (don't forget!). we would also have to make sure, a person isn't TGed twice so they don't accuse us of spamming.

Wachichi

Waichichi, when you are satisfied with the final draft, raise it with the others in the Allied Powers of Liberty. If they are happy with it, Collectivity support it.

we already have the final draft, posted up in the forum. The Altan Steppes and I have finished this draft of this co-authored legislation. we need the link to the proposal though.

Wachichi

I'll be re-submitting this tomorrow sometime. Once I do, I will TG everyone who's offered to TG for the proposal with a sample TG to send out (if they want). It'll have a functional link to the proposal in it. I'll also send out the list of nations I plan to TG to avoid duplication.

The proposal has been re-submitted. It can be viewed (and approved) here:

http://www.nationstates.net/31375/page=UN_proposal1/match=counterterrorism

All the best with this proposal, I expected it to reach quorum last time without my endorsement.

This time around I've endorsed it.

Good luck. It's possibly not the best time re proposals atm, things appear quite inactive on NS.

Iain.

Whilst we are happy to comply with this proposed resolution, we think that negotiation may be another solution.

yea. sometimes it's all about luck when it comes to proposing these things in corelation with the WA activity.

Wachichi

2 more approvals to go!!

The proposal has exactly two more approvals than it needs to achieve quorum at this point.

I'm going to continue sending out TGs to delegates just to make sure we don't fall below the cutoff.

It seems the W.A. Counter Terrorism Act has reached Quorum. The Government of the Emperor of Urgench would like to congratulate the esteemed and respected delegations of the Altan Steppes and Wachichi on this success and would like to offer our assurances of support in the upcoming voting debate and of our vote for their resolution.

Yours e.t.c. ,

We thank our Urgenchi friends for the kind words. We'd also like to thank our Gobbannean and Atanatari friends, and our co-author Wachichi, for helping with the TG campaign. We also need to give a nod to the Kennyites as well for offering to help TG. A thanks goes out to all the delegates who approved this as well, of course. This was definitely a group effort, and we hope that everyone's effort is rewarded by this passing.

Indeed. Our King is very pleased with this. Our nation wishes to continue these legislative relationships over other issues that face the international community.

Please let us know if you require any help during voting process, as we would gladly help.

Sincerly,

Thank you for the offer of help. The resolution is now up for vote, so the best thing you could do would be to encourage your regionmates to vote for it.

Disputed Lands of Voltaggia agree with this resolution, as it will allow us to root out the factional warfare that plagues the land by any means necesarry.

Disputed Lands of Voltaggia agree with this resolution, as it will allow us to root out the factional warfare that plagues the land by any means necesarry.
Well, it doesn't stop you doing that. Various other acts do put a bit of a damper on that "by any means necessary" though.

This proposal is important for the sake and well- beings of all countries:
Any country that opposes has made it so far now, that it may not (not saying it won't) affect them.

Wow, it's great to see the Act has gotten this far! I had trouble finding it in the forums for a few days, so I just gave up on it. Good job on getting the delegates, I guess all I can do now is vote!

-Gregory Nux

A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.


Like most anti-terror legislation, terrorism is inadequately defined here. This legislation, while meaning well, is too vague and would be open to abuse.
1) "The use of violence". If I threaten you with a clenched fist, is that a "use" of violence? Do you mean ACTS OF MERCILESS AND WANTON VIOLENCE DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE HARM?
2) The "non-state actors" requirement is misguided. If a state actor is killing a bunch of innocent people, is that not terrorism?
3) "creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome"
So if any one of these tests pasts, it could be terrorist?

Example: A mentally ill man threatens to beat a woman with a crowbar while preaching the gospel to a frightened crowd. Is he a terrorist?

Use of violence: check
non-state actor: check
creating fear: check
achieve religious outcome: check
targeting civilians: check

OMG HE'S A TERRORIST!! LOCK HIM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!

Good for you. You read one definition. Now try reading the rest of the proposal. It's called "context."

Like most anti-terror legislation, terrorism is inadequately defined here. This legislation, while meaning well, is too vague and would be open to abuse.
1) "The use of violence". If I threaten you with a clenched fist, is that a "use" of violence? Do you mean ACTS OF MERCILESS AND WANTON VIOLENCE DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE HARM?
2) The "non-state actors" requirement is misguided. If a state actor is killing a bunch of innocent people, is that not terrorism?
3) "creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome"
So if any one of these tests pasts, it could be terrorist?

Example: A mentally ill man threatens to beat a woman with a crowbar while preaching the gospel to a frightened crowd. Is he a terrorist?

Use of violence: check
non-state actor: check
creating fear: check
achieve religious outcome: check
targeting civilians: check

OMG HE'S A TERRORIST!! LOCK HIM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!


Any law may be interpreted foolishly, honoured Ambassador, and no law is immune to such mis-understanding. The real question is would any member state actually interpret this statute in the way you have suggested, and really the answer is no, unless that state is completely without reasonable government in which case no law could be written which such a government would not pervert.

As for the business of states commiting acts of terror, we have said previously in this thread that such acts are subject to completely different remedy which could not be dealt with in a statute such as this. The Confederated Sublime Khanate would reserve the right to take whatever action it saw fit if another state were sponsoring or commiting acts of terror with the intent of harming our citizens. Such "acts of terror" would in fact be considered acts of war by the government of the Emperor of Urgench.

Naturally such issues are to large to be tacked on to this bill and have therefore sensibly been left for others to legislate upon.

Yours e.t.c. ,

How does this resolution address the equally as important problem of states that commit direct acts of terrorism? It is easy perhaps to only tackle the non-state acts of terrorism but we must ensure that the states who pursue deliberate campaigns against civilians--whether domestic or foreign--are also held accountable.

Urgench said that such issues are "too large" to be effectively addressed in a resolution. I hardly think this should prevent us from trying. Pursuing some course as an international community will be far better than simply trying to ignore the problem.

C) DEFINES “terrorist(s)” as a person or persons whose acts fall under the definition of “terrorism”.

D) DEFINES “terrorist act(s)” as an act committed by a person falling under the definition of a “terrorist” whose cause is to achieve social, political, or religious ends through violence knowingly targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

3) REQUIRES member states to freeze, or otherwise take control of without undue delay, any and all assets of terrorist individuals or organizations within their jurisdiction which may be used to support international terrorist acts, including but not limited to: equipment, facilities, and funds.


I have a question: Just what is the definition of a "terrorist" or "terrorism," and what if the terrorist actions are being support not by a third party but by the government?

-Skyler Klemme, Premier of Lenovakia

I have a question: Just what is the definition of a "terrorist" or "terrorism,"
A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.

and what if the terrorist actions are being support not by a third party but by the government?
Technically, depending on what you mean by "being supported", it might not strictly speaking be a 'terrist act'. It's almost certainly a 'diplomatic incident', though, and very likely an 'act of war', depending on what the nation being acted against feels like.

How does this resolution address the equally as important problem of states that commit direct acts of terrorism? It is easy perhaps to only tackle the non-state acts of terrorism but we must ensure that the states who pursue deliberate campaigns against civilians--whether domestic or foreign--are also held accountable.

Urgench said that such issues are "too large" to be effectively addressed in a resolution. I hardly think this should prevent us from trying. Pursuing some course as an international community will be far better than simply trying to ignore the problem.


We did not say that the issue of state terrorism was too large for a resolution, we merely pointed out that the issue was too large to be dealt with in this resolution. The difference is profound.

Doubtless a resolution dealing with acts of terror committed by states could be written and probably should. We would support a sensible statutory remedy for such problems so long as it maintained our right to treat such acts in accordance with our national interest. We recommend that the honoured Ambassador for Azurria read what we actually wrote instead of misrepresenting our words.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Understanding this resolution seems to be very dependent on the definition of "violence" one uses, but no such definition is given by the resolution.

Understanding this resolution seems to be very dependent on the definition of "violence" one uses, but no such definition is given by the resolution.


Two things arise from this, respected Ambassador, firstly that the rest of the statute makes it clear that it deals with a specific form of violent activity and secondly if the honoured Ambassador has any doubt about the definition of the word "violence" we have a dictionary which will provide them with one, we would be happy to lend it to them.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Like most anti-terror legislation, terrorism is inadequately defined here. This legislation, while meaning well, is too vague and would be open to abuse.
1) "The use of violence". If I threaten you with a clenched fist, is that a "use" of violence? Do you mean ACTS OF MERCILESS AND WANTON VIOLENCE DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE HARM?
2) The "non-state actors" requirement is misguided. If a state actor is killing a bunch of innocent people, is that not terrorism?
3) "creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome"
So if any one of these tests pasts, it could be terrorist?

The more that you try to write legislation that covers every possible loophole and ludicrous decision that could be made in enforcing the legislation, the closer you get to the point of diminishing returns. We feel that our resolution strikes a reasonable and effective balance. As to your statement about our "non-state actors" requirement, if a state was killing a "bunch of innocent people", as you put it, that would be either an act of war or a genocide, depending on the situation. If you want to write legislation tackling genocides or war crimes, have at it. That does not fall within the scope of anti-terrorism legislation.

Example: A mentally ill man threatens to beat a woman with a crowbar while preaching the gospel to a frightened crowd. Is he a terrorist?

No. Do you have any other silly questions to ask?

How does this resolution address the equally as important problem of states that commit direct acts of terrorism? It is easy perhaps to only tackle the non-state acts of terrorism but we must ensure that the states who pursue deliberate campaigns against civilians--whether domestic or foreign--are also held accountable.

We have no problem with that whatsover, but states committing warlike acts against other states is entirely beyond the scope of anti-terrorism legislation. We chose to limit the remit of our resolution to non-state actors because we consider state-sponsored acts against another state to be an act of war. We'd welcome legislation to limit what acts states can commit against each other during wartime, but that is not strictly speaking within the scope of anti-terrorism legislation.

I have a question: Just what is the definition of a "terrorist" or "terrorism," and what if the terrorist actions are being support not by a third party but by the government?

From the resolution:

A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.

B) DEFINES “civilians”, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, or police."

C) DEFINES “terrorist(s)” as a person or persons whose acts fall under the definition of “terrorism”.

D) DEFINES “terrorist act(s)” as an act committed by a person falling under the definition of a “terrorist” whose cause is to achieve social, political, or religious ends through violence knowingly targeted at civilians or non-combatants.

As for the other half of your question, please see our response to the Azurrian ambassador.

Understanding this resolution seems to be very dependent on the definition of "violence" one uses, but no such definition is given by the resolution.

We defined "terrorism", "civilians", "terrorist" and "terrorist act". We can't define everything. And we think people can figure out what the word "violence" means.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

If a nation considering this proposal is already actively engaged in counterterrorism activities, then this proposal will have little or no effect upon that nation.

If a nation considering this proposal has little interest in conducting counterterrorism activities, all it needs to do is endorse terrorists within its borders with support (in contravention of the resolution) in order to make them state actors, which places such actors outside the definition of "terrorism" of this resolution, meaning that such nations' contravention of the spirit of this resolution will result in compliance with its letter.

Net effect of this resolution: zero.

(Not to mention that (7) is nonsensical -- since "terrorism" as defined is carried out by non-state actors, nations cannot employ terrorism, as defined. Unless the point is to say that subcontracting your terror with plausible deniability is not allowed, but allowing officially endorsed "privateer terrorists" *is* OK, the change being nothing more than a change of bookkeeping.)

Two things arise from this, respected Ambassador, firstly that the rest of the statute makes it clear that it deals with a specific form of violent activity and secondly if the honoured Ambassador has any doubt about the definition of the word "violence" we have a dictionary which will provide them with one, we would be happy to lend it to them.

I am perfectly aware of the meaning in the English language of "violence", but this meaning is far too vague to be used to define terrorism. For example, wiktionary defines violence as "Extreme force.", as "Actions intended to cause destruction, pain, and suffering.", as "Widespread fighting.", and as "Injustice, wrong." The last is figurative speech. Many things that might not be terrorism could be claimed to be with one or another of those definitions.


We defined "terrorism", "civilians", "terrorist" and "terrorist act". We can't define everything. And we think people can figure out what the word "violence" means.

In many cases of terrorism, it is obvious that it is violence. However, there are cases where terrorist acts might not be considered violent, or where it is questionable whether an act is violent or terrorist. Does violence include industrial sabotage? Does violence include destruction of property? Does violence include freeing living property? A rebel group sabotaging a nation's telecommunications networks might not be considered violent, but it would certainly be considered terrorism. This resolution's definition of terrorism is not adequate to cover it. This lack could be solved by defining violence for the purposes of this resolution to include these and similar acts or by expanding the definition of terrorism in this resolution to include nonviolent but terrorist acts.

If a nation considering this proposal is already actively engaged in counterterrorism activities, then this proposal will have little or no effect upon that nation.

If a nation considering this proposal has little interest in conducting counterterrorism activities, all it needs to do is endorse terrorists within its borders with support (in contravention of the resolution) in order to make them state actors, which places such actors outside the definition of "terrorism" of this resolution, meaning that such nations' contravention of the spirit of this resolution will result in compliance with its letter.

Net effect of this resolution: zero.

Actually no, that second paragraph has a very significant effect.

Let's suppose that Somewherestan is being plagued by terrorists that the nearby United States of Inertia can't be bothered to do anything about. Following your advice, the USI endorses the terrorists to make them state actors -- the state in question being the USI. At the very least diplomatic relations between Somewherestan and the USI will suffer, and more than likely the USI will find itself on the receiving end of claims for reparations, cooling international relations with a number of other nations, economic sanctions and possibly even invasion if Somewherestan feels upset enough.

At the very least diplomatic relations between Somewherestan and the USI will suffer, and more than likely the USI will find itself on the receiving end of claims for reparations, cooling international relations with a number of other nations, economic sanctions and possibly even invasion if Somewherestan feels upset enough.

Arguably all of these consequences would equally follow if there was any knowledge that USI was harboring -- even through complete inaction -- these terrorists.

It's a bit like the difference between blatantly turning a blind eye to pirates who make port at your harbors, or commissioning them yourself as privateers -- if either status becomes known, other nations will react to one *very much* in the same way as they react to the other.

Sure, if you can simply harbor while "turning a blind eye" you can try to maintain some fiction of plausible deniability, but we are talking about international relations, not what-can-you-prove-in-a-court-of-law. And when you get down the nuts and bolts of diplomacy, reactions are largely going to be based on the reality, not the fiction (insofar as the reality is realized) -- a little matter of bookkeeping isn't going to change significantly whether Nation A is going to invade you to finally do something about those terrorists/pirates.

We defined "terrorism", "civilians", "terrorist" and "terrorist act". We can't define everything. And we think people can figure out what the word "violence" means.


Not providing a clear definition in any legal matter, even something as simple as "violence" leaves it open to "selective" interpretation by any party, Honored Ambassador. Such loopholes allow for twisting of the resolution until it's no longer recognizable. It also depends on a given party's interpretation of "violence." Also, terrorism comes in many forms, not all of them violent.

I.E.

the United States of Over There is plagued by an outbreak of technological disasters(electrical failure,communications failure,computer viruses,etc.). These outbreaks are causing widespread panic to the populace, who are technologically dependent. These technological attacks are being caused by a group of insurgents. This is considered an act of terrorism, even though it isn't violent.

a better explanation:
In many cases of terrorism, it is obvious that it is violence. However, there are cases where terrorist acts might not be considered violent, or where it is questionable whether an act is violent or terrorist. Does violence include industrial sabotage? Does violence include destruction of property? Does violence include freeing living property? A rebel group sabotaging a nation's telecommunications networks might not be considered violent, but it would certainly be considered terrorism. This resolution's definition of terrorism is not adequate to cover it. This lack could be solved by defining violence for the purposes of this resolution to include these and similar acts or by expanding the definition of terrorism in this resolution to include nonviolent but terrorist acts

-Eamon Teeling, Ambassador to The Crimson Storm

Terrorists? Isn't that a harsh word for those who fight with the only weapons they have for equilibrium and the freedom to do what they feel is right, after they have used words? Who is anyone to judge who is a terrorist, and who is a freedom fighter against what might be an oppressive government?

It should be up to the people to decide whether they believe words are not enough, and up to them to decide whether the next steps should be taken. But banning the nations from assisting those who they believe are fighting for right and good and God's Will, I find is very disrespectful towards everyone.


.... And if those Liliputians don't stop crowding my schools I might just have a few men sneak in a bomb or two.

I am perfectly aware of the meaning in the English language of "violence", but this meaning is far too vague to be used to define terrorism. For example, wiktionary defines violence as "Extreme force.", as "Actions intended to cause destruction, pain, and suffering.", as "Widespread fighting.", and as "Injustice, wrong." The last is figurative speech. Many things that might not be terrorism could be claimed to be with one or another of those definitions.






Again, honoured Ambassador, we should point out that whatever your ( clearly faulty ) dictionary defines as Violence, the rest of the statute makes it abundantly clear what kinds of acts it is dealing with. Context, as has been said elsewhere in this debate, is everything.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Not providing a clear definition in any legal matter, even something as simple as "violence" leaves it open to "selective" interpretation by any party, Honored Ambassador. Such loopholes allow for twisting of the resolution until it's no longer recognizable. It also depends on a given party's interpretation of "violence."

Again, we don't think this is a loophole at all. We think that any reasonable nation can define what they consider a violent act without us having to hold their hand and tell them what violence is. And we firmly believe that you cannot micromanage every single detail and expect a resolution to be successful.

Also, terrorism comes in many forms, not all of them violent.

We chose to focus on violent acts because they tend to be the most destructive of life and property. Again, we could try to legislate against every single thing one could consider a terrorist act, but we were trying to craft a bill that didn't get so bogged down in micromanagement that it might actually pass.

Terrorists? Isn't that a harsh word for those who fight with the only weapons they have for equilibrium and the freedom to do what they feel is right, after they have used words? Who is anyone to judge who is a terrorist, and who is a freedom fighter against what might be an oppressive government?

Our resolution specifically does not include the arms of oppressive regimes (military and police) in its scope. That gives "freedom fighters" the right to fight for freedom by combating the regime that oppresses them. But we will never sign off on some blanket right for "freedom fighters" to kill and maim whomever they wish, and destroy whatever they want. There have to be limits in a world that has any hope of being civilized.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It should be up to the people to decide whether they believe words are not enough, and up to them to decide whether the next steps should be taken. But banning the nations from assisting those who they believe are fighting for right and good and God's Will, I find is very disrespectful towards everyone.

What you refer to ambassador is a human's natural rights. That they are free to act as they please. These people joined our governments for protection and without this bill our governments are threatened. A person should not have the right to over throw the government whenever they are unhappy with it. A democracy is a democracy to help the majority. We must watch out for the smaller person or else they will become terrorists in their time of need.

Have the last 8 years taught us nothing?
this definition of "terrorism" allows world leaders to commit any abhorent act they desire in the name of the common good, and no one can do anything about it. The leader of a nation can, as the US has many times in the past, declare a democratically elected government to be a "Terrorist state" because they do not approve. It is an attempt to get people up in arms to destroy those that disagree with you.

We chose to focus on violent acts because they tend to be the most destructive of life and property. Again, we could try to legislate against every single thing one could consider a terrorist act, but we were trying to craft a bill that didn't get so bogged down in micromanagement that it might actually pass.
That is an understandable goal. You have convinced me that this resolution is, despite its lacks, a good start to dealing with the problem of terrorism, ambassador. However, my country feels that it is important that we continue on this admirable path by developing further counterterrorism legislation which does cover nonviolent acts, especially acts of technological sabotage.

Also, what about governmental terrorism?
In april Putin launched a series of computer assaults towards Estonia. They first hit the president's webpage, then struck newspapers, television stations, schools and hospitals. The nation's infrastructure was in chaos. This was a direct attack to the people of the nation.

This is a CLEAR example of terrorism, orchestrated by a major world power. Do you suggest we declare war on Russia?

Also, what about all of the terrorism we are involved in?

Have the last 8 years taught us nothing?
this definition of "terrorism" allows world leaders to commit any abhorent act they desire in the name of the common good, and no one can do anything about it. The leader of a nation can, as the US has many times in the past, declare a democratically elected government to be a "Terrorist state" because they do not approve. It is an attempt to get people up in arms to destroy those that disagree with you.



The last 8 years of what, honouread Ambassador ? Or are you refering to events in the mythical "Real world" ?

Yours e.t.c.,

Arguably all of these consequences would equally follow if there was any knowledge that USI was harboring -- even through complete inaction -- these terrorists.

It's a bit like the difference between blatantly turning a blind eye to pirates who make port at your harbors, or commissioning them yourself as privateers -- if either status becomes known, other nations will react to one *very much* in the same way as they react to the other.
To extend your analogy, the difference in this case is that commissioning them is a public announcement, so the status becomes known straight away. And in point of fact, the WA has already made its opinion on turning a blind eye to pirates known: don't.

Have the last 8 years taught us nothing?
this definition of "terrorism" allows world leaders to commit any abhorent act they desire in the name of the common good, and no one can do anything about it. The leader of a nation can, as the US has many times in the past, declare a democratically elected government to be a "Terrorist state" because they do not approve. It is an attempt to get people up in arms to destroy those that disagree with you.
Since it carefully refers to non-state actors, this proposal would have absolutely nothing to say for or against nationally-sponsored terrorism, as has been said several times already. Pay attention at the back there. If you want to write a proposal to deal with war crimes, genocide or anything state-sponsored like that, please do. This is not that proposal.

Also, I'm afraid to tell you that the United States of Intertia I refered to earlier was completely made up, so how they can have done anything several times in the past is a bit of a mystery.

I find no known problems with this resolution. I am however, as I have always been, prepared to negotiate a peace deal with all terrorists in a peaceful manner was we would do with legitimate nations. I see clearly that this resolution only bans the promotion of terrorism, but not peaceful negotiation.

You've got my vote.

That is an understandable goal. You have convinced me that this resolution is, despite its lacks, a good start to dealing with the problem of terrorism, ambassador. However, my country feels that it is important that we continue on this admirable path by developing further counterterrorism legislation which does cover nonviolent acts, especially acts of technological sabotage.

We're glad you've decided to support our effort and we'd be glad to work on future legislation to deal with nonviolent acts. We're just not sure how such legislation would come about.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I find no known problems with this resolution. I am however, as I have always been, prepared to negotiate a peace deal with all terrorists in a peaceful manner was we would do with legitimate nations. I see clearly that this resolution only bans the promotion of terrorism, but not peaceful negotiation.

You've got my vote.

We're glad to have your vote. We're also glad you raised the point that this legislation would not prevent negotiating with terrorist groups to try to get them to end their ways. Negotiation can be as valuable a tool as force.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Again, we don't think this is a loophole at all. We think that any reasonable nation can define what they consider a violent act without us having to hold their hand and tell them what violence is. And we firmly believe that you cannot micromanage every single detail and expect a resolution to be successful.



We chose to focus on violent acts because they tend to be the most destructive of life and property. Again, we could try to legislate against every single thing one could consider a terrorist act, but we were trying to craft a bill that didn't get so bogged down in micromanagement that it might actually pass.



Our resolution specifically does not include the arms of oppressive regimes (military and police) in its scope. That gives "freedom fighters" the right to fight for freedom by combating the regime that oppresses them. But we will never sign off on some blanket right for "freedom fighters" to kill and maim whomever they wish, and destroy whatever they want. There have to be limits in a world that has any hope of being civilized.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Well said Respected Ambassador. For what's it's worth, you have to full support of The Crimson Storm

-Eamon Teeling, Ambassador of The D'Haran Province of The Crimson Storm

Anyone who opposes the bill is not thinking about our children's futures.
And that is the true inspiration of all economies.
We need PROMISEand change so if we truely admire our children's aspiration, enforce it!

A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants.

B) DEFINES “civilians”, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, or police."

Unfortunately Juksereen, anyone supporting this bill considers police as a justified target for (non)terrorists and makes civilians merely collateral damage in an attack on police or military type targets.

Well said Respected Ambassador. For what's it's worth, you have to full support of The Crimson Storm.

We're glad to have your support, Ambassador Teeling.

Unfortunately Juksereen, anyone supporting this bill considers police as a justified target for (non)terrorists and makes civilians merely collateral damage in an attack on police or military type targets.

So, you'd strip the right to fight oppressive regimes from people victimized by the police and soldiers of said regimes? Trust me, this is not a distinction we made casually or without thinking about it. We're not keen on seeing police or soldiers get blown up by any means. But we're also not keen on seeing people left with no recourse to defend themselves from oppressive states, either. Allowing the oppressed to target those enforcing that oppression while not allowing them to indisciminately blow up the schoolteacher, the used car salesman or the old lady taking a walk down the street seems like a balanced and fair solution to us.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Personally I'd like to express my thanks that this bill only deals with "non-state actors", whatever that means, and not us terrorist states. Of course, all a terrorist has to do to avoid the effects of this law is to declare him/her/it/themselves a "state". So basically the bill hardly seems worth a "yes" vote.

It appears you overlooked the fine print before posting your usual nonsense...

You're going to be a "terrorist state" that is:

1) REQUIRE[D] ... to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation.
(a)This shall include, but not be limited to, making it a criminal offense to conspire, aid, abet, fund, plan or carry out acts of terrorism across international borders. Member states shall prosecute those who violate such laws to the fullest extent possible within their nation.

2) BAN[NED] ... from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

3) REQUIRE[D] ... to freeze, or otherwise take control of without undue delay, any and all assets of terrorist individuals or organizations within their jurisdiction which may be used to support international terrorist acts, including but not limited to: equipment, facilities, and funds.Doesn't seem to me that declaring oneself a "state" to get around this resolution is very viable option.

Wow so how long does these laws take into effect?

Wow so how long does these laws take into effect?

This Statute would be implemented as soon as the vote is finished assuming a yes vote of course, Is that what you wanted to know honoured Ambassador ?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Yes that is what I to know thank you.

There is a serious problem with one part of this resolution
-BANS WA member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.
We fell that the WA should not be able to tell my nation who I can trade with. It is a direct infringement on the sovereignty of my nation to not be allowed to sell weapons, or in anything to whoever we want to.

There is a serious problem with one part of this resolution
-BANS WA member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.
We fell that the WA should not be able to tell my nation who I can trade with. It is a direct infringement on the sovereignty of my nation to not be allowed to sell weapons, or in anything to whoever we want to.

Waa waa! I'm losing my sovereignty! Suck it up sunshine, and while you're at it, read the FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/47895/page=faq#WA). Specifically this part.
The WA is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Senate will discuss this issue when it sits on Monday. The forum may be interested to learn that existing legislation on Counter Terrorism issues currently contradicts some of the current clauses in this proposed legislation, which may require The Shambles to forward amendments following the Senate meeting.

The Senate will discuss this issue when it sits on Monday. The forum may be interested to learn that existing legislation on Counter Terrorism issues currently contradicts some of the current clauses in this proposed legislation, which may require The Shambles to forward amendments following the Senate meeting.

Could you please point out to us the existing legislation that this supposedly conflicts with, and what clauses do so? For that matter, could you point out to us where in the WA rules it allows you to forward amendments?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Very good resolution,great job lads.

Can this even be enforced?

Could you please point out to us the existing legislation that this supposedly conflicts with, and what clauses do so? For that matter, could you point out to us where in the WA rules it allows you to forward amendments?

-Jaris Krytellin, AmbassadorI'm assuming they mean it conflicts with their national legislation.

Can this even be enforced?

You doubt the power of the gnomes?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Could you please point out to us the existing legislation that this supposedly conflicts with, and what clauses do so? For that matter, could you point out to us where in the WA rules it allows you to forward amendments?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador


Ambassador,

My apologies if the moving of amendments is not permitted. The proposed policy as phrased is not wholly acceptable without amendment. Further, it is somewhat peculiar to consider such a significant policy proposal "as is" without the opportunity to discuss or amend the legislation before coming to a decision on whether to support the policy.

To answer your first question, the Senate passed the Police and Evidence Act last year, which encompasses many of the view points expressed in this proposal.

With thanks,

i believe its a good idea but it needs a bit of fixing

Further, it is somewhat peculiar to consider such a significant policy proposal "as is" without the opportunity to discuss or amend the legislation before coming to a decision on whether to support the policy.

OOC: Actually, this proposal underwent several months of drafting & discussion in this forum. That your own nation was not yet active here during that period is unfortunate, but as new nations are regularly joining the WA there are probably always going to be cases in which new members are presented with submitted proposals "as is" like this...

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the honoured and respected delegation's of Wachichi and the Altan Steppes on their resounding victory.

Yours e.t.c. ,

We thank the Urgenchi and everyone else who helped get this passed.

My apologies if the moving of amendments is not permitted. The proposed policy as phrased is not wholly acceptable without amendment. Further, it is somewhat peculiar to consider such a significant policy proposal "as is" without the opportunity to discuss or amend the legislation before coming to a decision on whether to support the policy.That's just how the game works. You cannot change something once it's been submitted. Like Bears said, if you want something changed, you speak up beforehand.