NationStates Jolt Archive

With all this yammering about the Patriot Act and how it Infringes on Personal Freedoms while not effectively preventing Terroristic acts. it got me thinking...

Suppose that Nationstates was attacked by a radical group. several tens of thousands of people were killed. so now we need to create a bill to help protect our Nations from future attacks.

What provisions would you put in?
What powers would you give the authorities?
Would there be a time limit to this bill?

In other words, how would you secure your Nation and keep the freedoms your people want?

Please, let's try and keep this as serious as possible. Here I want to see what balance you would find between Security and Liberty.

EDIT:
Nationstates Patriot Act.
Article I: Immediately Cease all activity that angered terrorist in first place.
(Submitted by Fuhrers and Duces)
Article II:All rights are suspended. Protest of the act will call for a thorough investigation.
(Submitted by Neo Kervoskia)
Artical III: Any and all forms of Hacking/Virus creation will be classified as a Terrorist Act and perpetrators and Virus Creators will be persecuted as such.
(Submitted by JuNii)
Article IV: Creation of a National Milita for domestic defense. This milita would be comprised of citizens, authorized to carry concealed weapons, and answerable to the national military. In the case of any breach of conduct (i.e. shooting an innocent person with no real reason to think they were a clear and present danger) they would be tried and held accountable in military courts.
(Submitted by Green Mtn Alabama)

Bills don't protect against terrorists. Apparently, their disregard of the law is why we call them terrorists in the first place.

Besides, tens of thousands out of our hundred thousand or so is a ridiculously large amount of people. That would be 10, 20 percent of the population here killed. 9/11 killed 0.001% of the US population. So its not even a good analogy since, like most people who say that being concerned about civil liberties are "yammering", you are exagerrating the danger so scared people will follow you.

Is freedome really a nessecity?

let's just say some people like it. a lot.

I think article one should be: Let's stop killing them to steal their oil.

Maybe that would stop terrorism against... oil robbers.

Bills don't protect against terrorists. Apparently, their disregard of the law is why we call them terrorists in the first place.

Besides, tens of thousands out of our hundred thousand or so is a ridiculously large amount of people. That would be 10, 20 percent of the population here killed. 9/11 killed 0.001% of the US population. So its not even a good analogy since, like most people who say that being concerned about civil liberties are "yammering", you are exagerrating the danger so scared people will follow you.so what you are saying that even if 0.001% of your population dies in an obviously intentional act of violence perpetuated by a foreign entity, you would make no changes, you would make no effort to protect your citizens.


Interesting viewpoint.

I think article one should be: Let's stop killing them to steal their oil.

Maybe that would stop terrorism against... oil robbers.
if your Nation is stealing oil, then that would be an exellent start. I will edit it to include any action your Nation may be doing that this so-called-terror group might find offensive.

Article II:
All rights are suspended. Protest of the act will call for a thorough investigation.

With all this yammering about the Patriot Act and how it Infringes on Personal Freedoms while not effectively preventing Terroristic acts. it got me thinking...

Suppose that Nationstates was attacked by a radical group. several tens of thousands of people were killed. so now we need to create a bill to help protect our Nations from future attacks.

What provisions would you put in?
What powers would you give the authorities?
Would there be a time limit to this bill?

In other words, how would you secure your Nation and keep the freedoms your people want?

Please, let's try and keep this as serious as possible. Here I want to see what balance you would find between Security and Liberty.

EDIT:
Nationstates Patriot Act.
Article I: Immediately Cease all activity that angered terrorist in first place.
(Submitted by Fuhrers and Duces)

<.<
>.>
*cough cough*PB*cough*
:mp5:

Is freedome really a nessecity?
if it's not a nessecity for you, what freedoms would you remove?

or if shorter, what freedoms would you leave?

<.<
>.>
*cough cough*PB*cough*
:mp5:
??? You would remove any and all forms of bars/clubs from your Nation?

so what you are saying that even if 0.001% of your population dies in an obviously intentional act of violence perpetuated by a foreign entity, you would make no changes, you would make no effort to protect your citizens.


Interesting viewpoint.

No, actually, thats not what I said at all. Thanks for playing Strawman 2000.

I'm saying the Patriot Act doesn't protect anyone from terrorists. It hasn't done so.

I'm also saying we have quite a fair bit of anti-terrorism agencies, and I don't buy into the popular concept that no one in the country was aware of terrorism until being "woken up" by "9/11." The CIA, FBI, NSA are all very fucking much aware of terrorism. We didn't need a new organization, we don't need some new "Anti-Terrorism Legislation" (as if legislation actually prevents terrorists) and we really don't need year after year of masturbatory tribute to our national sense of victimhood.

And when only 0.001% of the population dies at the hands of terrorists... one year... but three times that amount are killed by fellow Americans EVERY year.... my priority amazingly is not on the scary terrorists.

I think the act requires a committee to be formed, such as the French Committee on Public Safety.

??? You would remove any and all forms of bars/clubs from your Nation?

I was implying that PBers would be the radical group in question.

Also it was a joke

Actually, if we're doing this "seriously" it would have to be done by our NS General Parliament, which is ostensibly suited to creating faux legislation to deal with our faux problems.

But it'll require at least one MP to propose the legislature. And it's not gonna be me. ;)

No, actually, thats not what I said at all. Thanks for playing Strawman 2000.

I'm saying the Patriot Act doesn't protect anyone from terrorists. It hasn't done so.

I'm also saying we have quite a fair bit of anti-terrorism agencies, and I don't buy into the popular concept that no one in the country was aware of terrorism until being "woken up" by "9/11." The CIA, FBI, NSA are all very fucking much aware of terrorism. We didn't need a new organization, we don't need some new "Anti-Terrorism Legislation" (as if legislation actually prevents terrorists) and we really don't need year after year of masturbatory tribute to our national sense of victimhood.

And when only 0.001% of the population dies at the hands of terrorists... one year... but three times that amount are killed by fellow Americans EVERY year.... my priority amazingly is not on the scary terrorists.and thanks for showing that you didn't understand the first post. This ISN'T about the US Patriot Act but one for Nationstates. The Patriot Act (US) outlined powers granted to authorities to better protect their citizens. granted some rights and freedoms were trampled, but now this excercise is to find out, how much freedom would you sacrifice for safety or vice versa. Would you grant your Authority the right to phone tap indiscrimately or would you put articles in to guarentee the Rights and Freedoms of not only your citizens, but anyone who comes to your Nation.

How would you secure your borders after an attack that would be worse than9/11? would you make any changes in the SOP of your Nation?

I was implying that PBers would be the radical group in question.

Also it was a joke
US... RADICAL???

man, there are non-PB Members that are more radical than us! :D

US... RADICAL???

man, there are non-PB Members that are more radical than us! :D

Perhaps, but they never made spam raids.

*sigh* If only I could have been there And all gentlemen in England no a'bed shall hold their manhoods cheap that they were not here(or something like that)

How about creation of a national milita to be used only for domestic defense. This milita would be comprised of citizens, authorized to carry concealed weapons, and answerable to the national military. In the case of breach of conduct (i.e. shooting an innocent person with no real reason to think they were a clear and present danger) they would be tried in military courts.

I think the act requires a committee to be formed, such as the French Committee on Public Safety.
so you would form a seperate Committee to handle Terrorist acts? what powers would they have?
any Teeth to enforce policy?

Perhaps, but they never made spam raids.

*sigh* If only I could have been there And all gentlemen in England no a'bed shall hold their manhoods cheap that they were not here(or something like that)MMmmmm Spam.... :D

and thanks for showing that you didn't understand the first post. This ISN'T about the US Patriot Act but one for Nationstates.

I understand perfectly. And my points apply to copies of the Patriot Act as well.

how much freedom would you sacrifice for safety or vice versa.

None, thats why I didn't play ball and come up with an "Act" (good word for this actually) that pretends to give safety (but doesn't) but does remove freedom.

I'm in favor of freedom far more than the illusion of safety... and more than the actuality of safety as well. The risk of dying to terrorist attacks is not something that concerns me any more than the risk of being murdered by a homegrown american, or killed in a car crash, or dying of lung cancer from all the pollution, or being struck down by God in act of holy righteousness.

Life is full of risks.


Would you grant your Authority the right to phone tap indiscrimately

No

or would you put articles in to guarentee the Rights and Freedoms of not only your citizens, but anyone who comes to your Nation.

I wouldn't need to put those in... we already have them in the Constitution.


How would you secure your borders after an attack that would be worse than9/11?

I wouldn't. The military and existing police/security/investigation agencies would.

so you would form a seperate Committee to handle Terrorist acts? what powers would they have?
any Teeth to enforce policy?
We'll be like the UN and make judgments, but not the muscle to enforce them. :D

Powers? Every power that a regular poster can possess.

None, thats why I didn't play ball and come up with an "Act" (good word for this actually) that pretends to give safety (but doesn't) but does remove freedom.

I'm in favor of freedom far more than the illusion of safety... and more than the actuality of safety as well. The risk of dying to terrorist attacks is not something that concerns me any more than the risk of being murdered by a homegrown american, or killed in a car crash, or dying of lung cancer from all the pollution, or being struck down by God in act of holy righteousness.

Life is full of risks.and that is a fair and honest point.

I wouldn't need to put those in... we already have them in the Constitution.

I wouldn't. The military and existing police/security/investigation agencies would.in other words, you would let your existing police/security/investigation agencies create policy and procedures to handle the security of your borders leaving them responsible for preventing future attacks, leaving them Liable if any more attacks should happen and for any Constitutional Infringement that should happen to occure while securing your boarders. inother words, you would do everything in your power to keep your government and Legislation "clean and blood-free" while shuffling the Responsiblity (and blame) to underlings even tho current policy and procedures were not enough to stop the attack in the first place.

In Other Words, you would do nothing.