NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC-I recently joined NS and the WA so this is my first proposal. Any supportive criticism or feedback would be much appreciated, and tell me if you like the proposal, that would be even more appreciated.

I do not like the Preventing Terrorism Proposal so I created this one:

Combating Terrorism Proposal

This resolution was created to ensure the rights of the people of the WA. It is to prevent falsely accused persons to be killed in their innocence. It is however providing alternative means of gathering HUMINT. It is also increasing security and funding. Nations accused of funding or harboring terrorists will be investigated. If the accusations are found to be true, the WA will act upon that evidence and use necessary measures to end the terrorism.

The Act states:

A. Security and military personnel will be cross-trained to combat terrorists and authorized to hold and use a firearm that is sufficient to their needs. The organizations will be funded by national and WA funds. Their training and equipment will be modernized by those funds.

B. Security and military personnel will be trained on how to shoot to not kill. In doing so, they will be able to prevent acts of terror while still being able to eliminate terrorists. They will, however, be trained to shoot to kill substantiated terrorists.

C. The security and military personnel will be authorized to negotiate with the terrorists. Using diplomacy as a tool to gather HUMINT. The negotiations will be examined by the nation of the security and military personnel or by the WA and unilaterally change any agreements. For example, such allows the security and military personnel to grant amnesty to the terrorist in order for that terrorist to cooperate; The negotiations will then be examined by the nation of the security and military personnel or by the WA and unilaterally revoke the amnesty granted by the security and military personnel.

D. Transportation facilities, service facilities, and public areas will be monitored by the security and military. Detection devices will be installed in the above-mentioned places to identify terrorists.

E. Nations accused of funding and harboring terrorists will be investigated to funding terrorists. If the accusations are found to be true, the WA will act upon that evidence and use necessary measures to end the terrorism.

This act ensures the safety and rights of all citizens in the World Assembly and prevents acts of terrorism from reoccurring. The act unites the members of the World Assembly to fight the War on Terror.

I do not like the Preventing Terrorism Proposal so I created this one

Could you elaborate as to why you don't like the WA Counterterrorism Act?

A. Security and military personnel will be cross-trained to combat terrorists and authorized to hold and use a firearm that is sufficient to their needs. The organizations will be funded by national and WA funds. Their training and equipment will be modernized by those funds.

This would unduly interfere with how nations choose to train counterterrorism forces. If a nation wants to keep a separate counterterrorism force, capable of being highly trained and specialized, rather than having to try to train every single cop and soldier to be a jack of all trades, they should be able to. Also, your provision of using WA funds to do this could run afoul of the rule that states the WA may not have a military (although a mod may be needed to decide that). Last and not least, the line about using "a firearm that is sufficient to their needs" is way too vague. What if a cop or soldier decides a tactical nuclear weapon is "sufficient to his needs"?

B. Security and military personnel will be trained on how to shoot to not kill. In doing so, they will be able to prevent acts of terror while still being able to eliminate terrorists. They will, however, be trained to shoot to kill substantiated terrorists.

This is utterly unrealistic in a real-life scenario. How quickly is a soldier or law enforcement officer expected to be able to determine someone is a substantiated terrorist, and thus have the right to put them down, while possibly being shot at or attacked themselves? This is, also, a gross infringement on a nation's right to decide its own law enforcement practices, without sufficient benefit or return to justify doing so.

C. The security and military personnel will be authorized to negotiate with the terrorists. Using diplomacy as a tool to gather HUMINT. The negotiations will be examined by the nation of the security and military personnel or by the WA and unilaterally change any agreements. For example, such allows the security and military personnel to grant amnesty to the terrorist in order for that terrorist to cooperate; The negotiations will then be examined by the nation of the security and military personnel or by the WA and unilaterally revoke the amnesty granted by the security and military personnel.

You're putting a nation's security/military forces and the WA over that nation's own government with this clause, giving both the right to both make, and "unilaterally change" any agreements made, with terrorists. This is unacceptable. I don't know how most countries may feel about that, but in the Federation, the democratically elected, civilian government has final say over such matters, not the police or the military, and we're not interested in changing that.

D. Transportation facilities, service facilities, and public areas will be monitored by the security and military. Detection devices will be installed in the above-mentioned places to identify terrorists.

What if a nation doesn't want to allow its military or police forces to engage in this kind of Orwellian surveillance? Not every nation is going to want to jump on board with this, and yet, your proposal would mandate they do so.

E. Nations accused of funding and harboring terrorists will be investigated to funding terrorists. If the accusations are found to be true, the WA will act upon that evidence and use necessary measures to end the terrorism.

How will the WA act on it? What "necessary measures" will it take?

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

lol.. i instantly saw this proposal and came right here. it seems ambassador from:Sovereign Unity that you've caught the attention of BOTH the writers of the Repeal the "Prevention of Terrorism' and it's replacement "WA Counterterrorism Act".

i see many flaws in the legislation, but if you wish to replace our legislation, you MUST repeal it first. that's what we did (Wachichi, and Altan Steppes). You can't have two legislations as the same.

also, your legislation is superior to yours because 1. we define terrorism terrorist, ...etc. 2. You want countries to be investigated? if a country is supporting terrorism, you think they'll just let ANYONE walk in and prove the accusers right?

here's our legislation: tell us what you think is wrong with it in order to replace it seeing that the legislation you're against has been repealed a while ago.

this is the repeal:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14231830&postcount=26

this is the newest terrorism act: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14283232&postcount=27

Wachichi

I like the WA Counterterrorism Act; however, that is not what I oppose. The Prevention of Terrorism Act Proposal is what I oppose, but it is not yet passed; scroll down to Prevention of Terrorism Act: http://www.nationstates.net/57937/page=UN_proposal

To Wachichi:

My proposal wouldn't be replacing R #25, it would be building upon R #25. I would have defined terrorism in my proposal if I did, indeed, plan on repealing R #25; it unnecessary as I do not. Also, I know that guilty countries will probably not let investigators do their job, but if they don't, the other nations that have been attacked by the terrorists they support will go to war with the guilty nations, even without the WA consent. Think the Iraq War.

To Altan:

This proposal is not meant to be an ideal anti-terrorism bill, it is simply trying to prevent the prevention of Terrorism Act Proposal from being passed, which would limit grossly infringe on the rights of people. It is a compromise between a bill that you would see as best and the proposal gaining support in the WA; it is an alternative.

This would unduly interfere with how nations choose to train counterterrorism forces. If a nation wants to keep a separate counterterrorism force, capable of being highly trained and specialized, rather than having to try to train every single cop and soldier to be a jack of all trades, they should be able to.

I agree; I was too vague so let me specify that what I intended was for a counterterrorist unit be formed in each country so that they could defend themselves and, indirectly, other nations.

Also, your provision of using WA funds to do this could run afoul of the rule that states the WA may not have a military (although a mod may be needed to decide that).

I did not realize that, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I do believe, however, that internal and foreign funds can be increased.

Last and not least, the line about using "a firearm that is sufficient to their needs" is way too vague. What if a cop or soldier decides a tactical nuclear weapon is "sufficient to his needs"?

It is too vague. I believe that a gun with sufficient caliber to shoot accurately at a reason range, with enough force so that a armor piercing bullet can pierce the armor of a terrorist, and to be able to mortally wound a terrorist. I am not a gun expert so I have no clue as to what that would be, but I think you get my drift.

This is utterly unrealistic in a real-life scenario. How quickly is a soldier or law enforcement officer expected to be able to determine someone is a substantiated terrorist, and thus have the right to put them down, while possibly being shot at or attacked themselves? This is, also, a gross infringement on a nation's right to decide its own law enforcement practices, without sufficient benefit or return to justify doing so.

I was thinking along the lines of a known terrorist was acting in a suspicious manner, for example, stuffing a bag in a trashcan. Of course the military or security personnel would be open to retaliation, but those are the dangers that go with that line of work.

This would not be changing the nations’ law enforcement policies to a considerable degree, it would be protecting the law enforcement officer’s actions of protecting his fellow citizens.

You're putting a nation's security/military forces and the WA over that nation's own government with this clause, giving both the right to both make, and "unilaterally change" any agreements made, with terrorists. This is unacceptable. I don't know how most countries may feel about that, but in the Federation, the democratically elected, civilian government has final say over such matters, not the police or the military, and we're not interested in changing that.

No, you miss read the clause. The security and military personnel would make the first agreements, and then the nation of whom the security and military personnel, or the WA, would ratify or repeal the agreements and thus having the final say over such matters.

It is an alternative to torture; although, it would be infringing on some rights it would not be to such a degree as the torture mentioned in Prevention of Terrorism Act Proposal.

What if a nation doesn't want to allow its military or police forces to engage in this kind of Orwellian surveillance? Not every nation is going to want to jump on board with this, and yet, your proposal would mandate they do so.

It should be optional, but the point is: if they want it, the funding is theirs.

How will the WA act on it? What "necessary measures" will it take?

To whatever degree is necessary to prevent terrorist acts from being supported by that nation.

I like the WA Counterterrorism Act; however, that is not what I oppose. The Prevention of Terrorism Act Proposal is what I oppose, but it is not yet passed; scroll down to Prevention of Terrorism Act: http://www.nationstates.net/57937/page=UN_proposal

My apologies, I didn't realize that proposal existed. Luckily, it does not appear that it's going to make quorum, because it's Gods-awful.

I agree; I was too vague so let me specify that what I intended was for a counterterrorist unit be formed in each country so that they could defend themselves and, indirectly, other nations.

While we like that idea, we do wonder if it might be best for individual nations to decide if they want to form such a force or not. Not every nation will have the desire, or even the ability, to do so. In any case, the intent you had would need to be spelled out more clearly in the legislation.

It is too vague. I believe that a gun with sufficient caliber to shoot accurately at a reason range, with enough force so that a armor piercing bullet can pierce the armor of a terrorist, and to be able to mortally wound a terrorist. I am not a gun expert so I have no clue as to what that would be, but I think you get my drift.

That's better, and I think we could do with clarifying that a bit in the proposal.

I was thinking along the lines of a known terrorist was acting in a suspicious manner, for example, stuffing a bag in a trashcan. Of course the military or security personnel would be open to retaliation, but those are the dangers that go with that line of work.

True, but I still think that this is best left to individual nations to decide how to detain or approach suspected criminals.

No, you miss read the clause. The security and military personnel would make the first agreements, and then the nation of whom the security and military personnel, or the WA, would ratify or repeal the agreements and thus having the final say over such matters.

More clarification that governments, rather than security forces, would retain final authority would be needed to make this acceptable. In addition, we're not fond of the idea of the WA having authority over legal agreements made between the judicial or law enforcement branches of member states and criminals.

It should be optional, but the point is: if they want it, the funding is theirs.

The optionality of that clause would likewise need to be clarified.

To whatever degree is necessary to prevent terrorist acts from being supported by that nation.

"Whatever degree is necessary" is a slippery slope at best; this also does not address how the WA will do so.

While I applaud your intent, I do also have to question the legality of both the "Prevention of Terrorism" proposal and this one, given that existing legislation already exists on the matter.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

I personally would not vote for my proposal, although I would pick mine over the Prevention proposal. That was my intent. If the Prevention proposal seems to be gaining approval I will redraft mine so that there is an alternative.

i followed the link and it led me to a whole bunch of unrelated proposals, but based on what i can read, there was a proposal also called the prevention of Terrorism? i thought you were referring to the one we already repealed. my apologies.

the problem with this proposal, now that i know we're both on the same side is, just because a nation doesn't want investigators running around it's country and facilities doesn't mean it's guilty. I would never want my nation's soveriegnty infringed upon by such an investigation.

the only way this is gonna work is, if you allow investigations to be started only by vote. as in, everytime there needs to be an 'investigation' which would require people to search certain places in countries to see if they are aiding terrorists, this proposal should require that, that 'investigation' be administers and authorized by a WA vote of all delegates. if they majority of delegates see fit to start in investigation (meaning there is overwhelming evidence something is happening) than they'll vote FOR an investigation. if not, they'll vote against one.

get my point on that issue?

Wachichi

I personally would not vote for my proposal, although I would pick mine over the Prevention proposal. That was my intent. If the Prevention proposal seems to be gaining approval I will redraft mine so that there is an alternative.

oh! i see

If it is legal my nation will back it.

it is not a proposal, so you cant.