[Passed]: Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws

[Sionis Prioratus]

Quorum has been attained.

Yes! That was much quicker than I expected. I'd like to thank everyone who approved it. We'll be voting on it in about .....*looks at queue* ....two weeks.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Your Excellency is welcome!

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Do WA resolutions apply to the WA itself? I know we've had this discussion but I can't remember the thread or what the consensus was. Certainly if the WA was mentioned by name they would apply but otherwise, I'm not sure...

OOC: I don't know either, since it would applying administrative law and whatnot, which is what the bookkeeping category used to be. Even the WA could write ex post facto laws, it wouldn't matter, since this proposal prevents nations to acting upon them. The WA can never have a police force, so the WA acting upon them isn't a worry either.

[New Buckner]

It already does that. I would suggest the honored ambassador read it again.

I merely think the wording needs to be re-done in order to clarify the specifics to it. It is quite vague and reading the comments of many of the other Ambassadors, section III seems to be the biggest sticking point.

As to my recommendation of the additional clause. Why wait to try and pass additional legislation that is in direct relation to this one. If you are going to be pushing for the passing of legislation that will set up Nations for these kinds of legal backlash from people who are set free, suites against lost time, lost wages, etc, why don't you just simple add an additional line that in one sentence prevents this from happening.

I know it makes common sense, and surely the Honored Ambassador Mr. Watts would agree that it would save time and remove one possible out cry to this bill not passing.

[New Leicestershire]

I merely think the wording needs to be re-done in order to clarify the specifics to it. It is quite vague and reading the comments of many of the other Ambassadors, section III seems to be the biggest sticking point.

I'm sorry ambassador but you yourself seem to be the only one complaining about it. Who are these other ambassadors?

As to my recommendation of the additional clause. Why wait to try and pass additional legislation that is in direct relation to this one. If you are going to be pushing for the passing of legislation that will set up Nations for these kinds of legal backlash from people who are set free, suites against lost time, lost wages, etc, why don't you just simple add an additional line that in one sentence prevents this from happening.

I know it makes common sense, and surely the Honored Ambassador Mr. Watts would agree that it would save time and remove one possible out cry to this bill not passing.

But it doesn't make sense to include anything like that because it has nothing at all to do with the purpose of this legislation. Depending on national laws which allow one to bring suit against the government, people who have been wrongfully convicted already can do that.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Buckner]

If the Ambassador from New Leicestershire would review the conversations starting at the bottom of page 1, you will be able to follow along with the rest of class.

It makes perfect sense to include it because it has to do with the ramifications that forcing all members of the WA to enact this bill will open them up to these sorts of actions. It's called compromise. You want some nations who appose this legislature (as you will have with any bill) to open themselves up to recourse from the inaction of a law, yet you leave it up to them to create another law that is local to their own country to counter-act the actions of the law.


I don't think you see what I'm trying to point out. It has nothing to do with wrongful conviction, at least not in the governments view. It merely has to do with protecting the government from actions against it from someone who is set free from the passing of this bill by clarifying that if they are released from a law becoming a legal action, they can't turn around and go after (possibly even the WA since the law originates from them) for loss time, loss of freedom, lost wages.

It has everything to do with this resolution.

[New Leicestershire]

If the Ambassador from New Leicestershire would review the conversations starting at the bottom of page 1, you will be able to follow along with the rest of class.

It makes perfect sense to include it because it has to do with the ramifications that forcing all members of the WA to enact this bill will open them up to these sorts of actions. It's called compromise. You want some nations who appose this legislature (as you will have with any bill) to open themselves up to recourse from the inaction of a law, yet you leave it up to them to create another law that is local to their own country to counter-act the actions of the law.


I don't think you see what I'm trying to point out. It has nothing to do with wrongful conviction, at least not in the governments view. It merely has to do with protecting the government from actions against it from someone who is set free from the passing of this bill by clarifying that if they are released from a law becoming a legal action, they can't turn around and go after (possibly even the WA since the law originates from them) for loss time, loss of freedom, lost wages.

It has everything to do with this resolution.

The Resolution is at quorum and will be voted on as written. I am very pleased with it, in fact. If the honourable ambassador disagrees, then I would advise him to cast his nation's vote against.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Buckner]

Have no doubts sir, we will most certainly vote against it, and encourage everyone else to vote in against it if the resolution remains in it's current form.

Just because the resolution is at "quorum" the ideas and opinions we have on matters such as these will continue to be debated in these hallowed halls.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Have no doubts sir, we will most certainly vote against it, and encourage everyone else to vote in against it if the resolution remains in it's current form.

Just because the resolution is at "quorum" the ideas and opinions we have on matters such as these will continue to be debated in these hallowed halls.

So you're asking that the Resolution be deleted and totally re-written just so the author can insert wording that he doesn't even agree belongs in the text? Just to make you happy? Not gonna happen.

Annnyway....we can continue to use this thread for now. A new one, with appropriately outrageous poll, will likely be created for the At Vote discussions.

[New Buckner]

I merely voiced my disapproval of what it lacked to make it a strong bill, made a suggestion as to what would make it a passable bill in my opinion, and then backed up my thoughts in forum. No where in that chain of events do I recall any sort of whining or crying. It was merely a suggestion of something I felt the resolution needed to have in it.

I have viewed an odd similarity, one someone recommends a change to a resolution, and some, to include the author of the resolution, don't like the suggestion - it suddenly becomes a "oh you just want me to change it to make you happy" situation...if you don't wish to receive criticism towards your draft proposals, than why would you even bother posting the drafts other than to say "LOOK MAMA WHAT I DID".

I will be sure to continue this argument once the bill comes up for vote.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I merely voiced my disapproval of what it lacked to make it a strong bill, made a suggestion as to what would make it a passable bill in my opinion, and then backed up my thoughts in forum. No where in that chain of events do I recall any sort of whining or crying. It was merely a suggestion of something I felt the resolution needed to have in it.

I have viewed an odd similarity, one someone recommends a change to a resolution, and some, to include the author of the resolution, don't like the suggestion - it suddenly becomes a "oh you just want me to change it to make you happy" situation...if you don't wish to receive criticism towards your draft proposals, than why would you even bother posting the drafts other than to say "LOOK MAMA WHAT I DID".

I will be sure to continue this argument once the bill comes up for vote.

I think you're missing the point. The only way to revise it now would be to ask the mods to delete it, re-write it, re-submit it, then do a full blown telegram campaign, again, to get it back to quorum.

You should have spoken up when it was still being drafted instead of waiting until it was in queue. That's not to guarantee that your ideas would have been implemented, they probably wouldn't have, but at least it would have been possible at that point. I'll respond IC with New Leicestershire later, but I wanted to explain OOC why it isn't possible to change it now.

Additionally, I'm not swayed by your argument and see no need for the changes you're suggesting. That's not just me (as New Leicestershire) RPing a disagreement. I really think your changes are uncalled-for.

[New Buckner]

I began making my comments on suggested changes BEFORE it was cleared through. Regardless of the fact, I continued to voice my disagreement of it's contents and what it lacked, in the proper forum for such disagreement.

I get the point. Nowhere in there did I say it should be deleted, etc. I'm merely making my comments on my belief that the resolution is weak in its current forum and where it lacks at.

I understand why it isn't possible to change, and have no concerns or arguments with that. I believe it has all stemmed from a mis-understanding of where we lie in our understanding of what exactly the issues are here.

You are quite entitled to your opinion, as I'am to mine. If I sway so much as just a single vote against this resolution for what it lacks, I can consider my argument a success.

[New Leicestershire]

I began making my comments on suggested changes BEFORE it was cleared through. Regardless of the fact, I continued to voice my disagreement of it's contents and what it lacked, in the proper forum for such disagreement.

I get the point. Nowhere in there did I say it should be deleted, etc. I'm merely making my comments on my belief that the resolution is weak in its current forum and where it lacks at.

I understand why it isn't possible to change, and have no concerns or arguments with that. I believe it has all stemmed from a mis-understanding of where we lie in our understanding of what exactly the issues are here.

You are quite entitled to your opinion, as I'am to mine. If I sway so much as just a single vote against this resolution for what it lacks, I can consider my argument a success.

It doesn't need a clause protecting governments against lawsuits and even if you had suggested such a thing during drafting I wouldn't have added it. Nowhere in the text does it state that individuals are entitled to bring such suits. If you're that worried about it, simply pass laws at the national level stating that they can't. That isn't something that the World Assembly needs to do for you, you can do it yourself.

Do you have any other complaints that I may address?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[The Palentine]

i'd advise you to stock up on the potables, old bean. i've a bad feeling that you're going to have to deal with a lot of crap(like that from the ambassador from New Buckner) with this debate. If you run out Mr. Watts, my minibar is always ready to be of assistance.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Philimbesi]

I also offer my personal stash of Lagavulin, to you ambassador. The group that use the WA as an Auto-Government option for their nations tend to be long winded.

~ Nigel

[New Buckner]

I cannot change your way of thinking, nor give you the mental ability to see through the fog of your own thoughts.

The fact that in the text it wasn't listed was exactly my problem. Nor does it say they can't. This isn't a case of "using the WA as an Auto-Government option". This is a case of a resolution you wish to enact that will set free criminals if the law changes, those criminals aren't stupid. They will want retribution for their lost time and try and exploit the system to get such retribution. But you expect my Nation to suffer these, or either never change our laws so that once a criminal always a criminal (the thought of this does tempt me), or create another law and add to our legal system something that wouldn't even be necessary were it not for this bill.

I'm quite aware there will never be such a thing as a 100% vote in favor of a resolution, and everyone will not always get what they want. But I owe it to the people and the Nation of New Buckner to struggle every day to ensure they are being represented in a manner fit of their stature.

You may continue to get upset over the challenging remarks to your precious Resolution, and I will continue to review them and respond, it is doubtful, but one day someone might just change someone else's mind in a heated debate such as this. Such is the way politics goes. If you would like, the people of New Buckner would be glad to pay for some Political Science classes for you at your local university, maybe even a critical thinking class or too...

Mr. Sulla might want to ensure his mini bar is stocked, it might be getting alot of use over the next few months.

[New Leicestershire]

This is a case of a resolution you wish to enact that will set free criminals if the law changes, those criminals aren't stupid. They will want retribution for their lost time and try and exploit the system to get such retribution. But you expect my Nation to suffer these, or either never change our laws so that once a criminal always a criminal (the thought of this does tempt me), or create another law and add to our legal system something that wouldn't even be necessary were it not for this bill.

These criminals you speak of were convicted and imprisoned under an ex post facto law. They were punished for acts which were not crimes at the time those acts were committed. Pardon me for saying this, but I'm not surprised that the prisons of New Buckner would contain such persons. Once this passes they will be released and I honestly would not blame them if they seek retribution against what is obviously a lawless and corrupt regime. However, it is within your government's power to prevent them from seeking such retribution. It is not my problem, nor is it the World Assembly's problem if you neglect to do so.

You may continue to get upset over the challenging remarks to your precious Resolution, and I will continue to review them and respond, it is doubtful, but one day someone might just change someone else's mind in a heated debate such as this.

Oh you misunderstand, ambassador. I am not upset. Maybe I was a little at first when I was trying to take your remarks seriously, but now I am simply amused.

If you would like, the people of New Buckner would be glad to pay for some Political Science classes for you at your local university, maybe even a critical thinking class or too...

No no, I've had enough of University. Such things would interfere with my drinking. That is a rather bold statement though. You consider yourself a political scientist and a critical thinker then? Perhaps you will dazzle us some more with your critical thinking and expound upon the subject of political science? I can hardly wait.

Mr. Sulla might want to ensure his mini bar is stocked, it might be getting alot of use over the next few months.

I...um..don't believe the good but slightly unwholesome Senator was offering access to his minibar to you, ambassador.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."

While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

It was legal for him to order whatever he wanted once he crowned himself Chancellor, his soldiers and populace condoned and assisted in the genocidal acts only to follow the orders of the Chancellor or else they would have faced persecution under the laws of Stash Kroh.

Once Stash Kroh joined the World Assembly, the nation was visited by the Compliance Commission, and it is to my knowledge that Stash Kroh adopted the legislation of the World Assembly (including the Genocide Act) as a series of Ex Post Facto Laws more specifically to punish the Chancellor.

Yours
Pascal S. Wager

[New Leicestershire]

Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."

While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

It was legal for him to order whatever he wanted once he crowned himself Chancellor, his soldiers and populace condoned and assisted in the genocidal acts only to follow the orders of the Chancellor or else they would have faced persecution under the laws of Stash Kroh.

Once Stash Kroh joined the World Assembly, the nation was visited by the Compliance Commission, and it is to my knowledge that Stash Kroh adopted the legislation of the World Assembly (including the Genocide Act) as a series of Ex Post Facto Laws more specifically to punish the Chancellor.

Yours
Pascal S. Wager

That's not an example of an Ex Post Facto law though since the Genocide Act and the other resolutions were in existence when he committed the acts, they just didn't apply to him since Stash Kroh wasn't a WA member. An Ex Post Facto law would be a law passed after he committed the acts that retroactively made what he did illegal. So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Buckner]

Ambassador Watts,

You attempts to criticism the judicial system of New Buckner is a freshman attempt at slander. The Lex Publicus Quod Terra is staunch, but fair in it's delivery of justice. If a jury of your peers discover that the evidence the People's Examiner has gathered against you, then the punishment they decide is considered worthy. While the Court of Honors is always willing to hear cases where there as mis-deeds suspected, the number is less than 3% of all cases brought to the Tribune.

You fail to see where a Nation can easily get past this resolution, should it even be passed. Simply keep all current laws on the books, and nobody will be released. While New Buckner already has in place laws that do in fact release prisoners if the law they were convicted upon is deemed un-lawful or there is a change, if of course that was the only crime they were convicted of...and the provisions are already in place to prevent them from seeking retribution against the People of New Buckner since they were convicted for illegal crimes.

Our strong dis-agreement for the wording in this bill centers around the fact that this is choice that we have made, and don't want to see this situation put upon another Nation by this resolutions attempt at passage.

Have no worries, the late night shows in New Buckner have enjoyed many a punch line at the expense of your comments here.

Now the drinking...if you would have mentioned that before, things would have made much more sense in this matter.

You won't have to worry about any lessons from New Buckner at our expense...it would merely be a waste of our honored professors time and that of the People's money.

I never implied the desire to partake in Mr. Sulla's mini bar unless offered. Simple making the point it is going to take large amounts of liquor to even make it through the process with this resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.

I do not see why we shouldn't be aiming to ban it, Ambassador Watts. I was under the assumption that the proposal already did, though, with the first article?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[New Leicestershire]

So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.

I do not see why we shouldn't be aiming to ban it, Ambassador Watts. I was under the assumption that the proposal already did, though, with the first article?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

In the example of Stash Kroh, the WA resolutions already existed at the time the acts were committed. They were not passed after the fact, then applied retroactively. The act of genocide had already been outlawed in WA law before the Stash Kroh genocide took place. Granted, Stash Kroh was not a member at the time so the acts were technically 'legal'. After Stash Kroh entered the WA the resolutions were applied retroactively. That will no longer be possible after this passes, but it isn't the primary goal of the Resolution.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Leicestershire]

OOC: Oh how I wish I was using a different nation to debate this. David Watts is too nice.

Ambassador Watts,

You attempts to criticism the judicial system of New Buckner is a freshman attempt at slander. The Lex Publicus Quod Terra is staunch, but fair in it's delivery of justice. If a jury of your peers discover that the evidence the People's Examiner has gathered against you, then the punishment they decide is considered worthy. While the Court of Honors is always willing to hear cases where there as mis-deeds suspected, the number is less than 3% of all cases brought to the Tribune.

And this bit of trivia is relevant...how?

You fail to see where a Nation can easily get past this resolution, should it even be passed. Simply keep all current laws on the books, and nobody will be released.

And you fail to see that compliance with WA resolutions is mandatory. Once this passes, all prisoners convicted under ex post facto laws will be released. Period. You won't be able to keep all current laws "on the books" if some of them are ex post facto laws.

While New Buckner already has in place laws that do in fact release prisoners if the law they were convicted upon is deemed un-lawful or there is a change, if of course that was the only crime they were convicted of...and the provisions are already in place to prevent them from seeking retribution against the People of New Buckner since they were convicted for illegal crimes.

So why are you raising such a fuss and making a fool of yourself? You already have laws in place to prevent released prisoners from seeking retribution. Wasn't that what you were so worked up about to begin with?

Our strong dis-agreement for the wording in this bill centers around the fact that this is choice that we have made, and don't want to see this situation put upon another Nation by this resolutions attempt at passage.

Ah. So now you change your story. You're worried about those other nations. Ambassador, why don't you quit while you're....well, not ahead exactly...but before you embarrass yourself even further. And don't worry about those other nations. They're governed by big boys and big girls and I'm sure they have the ability to pass laws protecting the government from lawsuits brought by released prisoners.

Have no worries, the late night shows in New Buckner have enjoyed many a punch line at the expense of your comments here.

I don't watch much television myself, but I'm glad that I could bring some happiness into the lives of the benighted people of New Buckner.

Now the drinking...if you would have mentioned that before, things would have made much more sense in this matter.

I believe it was Churchill who said "“Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.”

You won't have to worry about any lessons from New Buckner at our expense...it would merely be a waste of our honored professors time and that of the People's money.

Well I am immensely grateful that we can agree on that.

I never implied the desire to partake in Mr. Sulla's mini bar unless offered. Simple making the point it is going to take large amounts of liquor to even make it through the process with this resolution.

It will take large amounts of alcohol for me to endure much more of your rhetoric, ambassador. Do you have anything substantive to add? Anything at all? I'm beginning to feel that your rambling is meant as a distraction and that you actually have very little interest in the Resolution being discussed. Either that or you enjoy the sound of your own voice.

I have wasted about as much time with you as I am willing to waste. Good day sir.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Unibot]

Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."

While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

It was legal for him to order whatever he wanted once he crowned himself Chancellor, his soldiers and populace condoned and assisted in the genocidal acts only to follow the orders of the Chancellor or else they would have faced persecution under the laws of Stash Kroh.

Once Stash Kroh joined the World Assembly, the nation was visited by the Compliance Commission, and it is to my knowledge that Stash Kroh adopted the legislation of the World Assembly (including the Genocide Act) as a series of Ex Post Facto Laws more specifically to punish the Chancellor.

Yours
Pascal S. Wager

That's not an example of an Ex Post Facto law though since the Genocide Act and the other resolutions were in existence when he committed the acts, they just didn't apply to him since Stash Kroh wasn't a WA member. An Ex Post Facto law would be a law passed after he committed the acts that retroactively made what he did illegal. So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

That makes sense, ambassador. Thank you.

Good luck on the proposal!

[Burninati0n]

I'm going to have to vote no on this one. I like the idea, and even support it. The thing is, I can't figure out why you've left an ex post facto provision in the proposal.

[New Leicestershire]

I'm going to have to vote no on this one. I like the idea, and even support it. The thing is, I can't figure out why you've left an ex post facto provision in the proposal.

Ironic, isn't it? It has to be there in order to ensure the release of persons already convicted under ex post facto laws. The alternative would be to allow wrongfully convicted persons to remain in gaol. I'm sorry if that makes you unable to support it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire