NationStates

Sciongrad wrote:OOC: The idea that factual inaccuracies can exist in repeals at all, regardless of how central to the argument they are, is completely and utterly illogical.

OOC: That doesn't really disprove the point I made earlier. Mouse's piece that mentioned it, did so in passing. And made many other arguments. The WA Counterterrorism Act can successfully be argued to prevent state terrorism(and was). If the original included a clause stating that it didn't, and that any clauses that might interfere with state terrorism didn't, then saying it did would be an honest mistake. Since it doesn't include such an exclusion, there are arguments to be made that the act does result in an effective ban. This repeal doesn't make those arguments but uses it as the exclusive reasoning for repeal, and so on face value appears to run afoul of the honest mistake rule.

He needs to explain his points here, since the central crux of the repeal is that the WA Counterterrorism Act does something that it doesn't appear to actually do. The point isn't the veracity of the statement, it's in explaining what the heck you're talking about. By my estimation, honest mistake is not a rule meant to exclude all incorrect arguments. It is meant to exclude obviously incorrect arguments especially when they are the central focus of a repeal.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:OOC: That doesn't really disprove the point I made earlier. Mouse's piece that mentioned it, did so in passing. And made many other arguments.

My point is that whether or not it's mentioned in passing shouldn't matter - it shouldn't be legal for a repeal to have any factually inaccurate clauses. Permitting minor inaccuracy doesn't actually make any sense. Regardless of the legality of this repeal, my point is that the honest mistake clause has a non-sense interpretation. Your argument is using Mall's ruling as logical reasoning when I'm dismissing Mall's ruling as illogical.

By my estimation, honest mistake is not a rule meant to exclude all incorrect arguments.

My interpretation was that it prevented misreadings of the text from being included in repeals.

All OOC. Got a bit sidetracked, but I'll try to reply to everything in one go.

Sciongrad wrote:Oh, is that rule still being enforced?

I don't know. There were three different senses of the ruling at the time:

• the original position, that the argument wasn't factually inaccurate (so we can assume the Honest Mistake rule still is enforced)
• Mallorea's revised position (speaking on behalf of all of the mods) that the Honest Mistake was not being enforced because it was a "minor" violation (in which case, no the Honest Mistake rule isn't enforced, but it also makes this repeal redundant)
• Kryozerkia's bizarre follow-up which revised the Honest Mistake rule to only applying to the "targeted resolution", meaning about a billion past repeals removed for misinterpreting Rights & Duties shouldn't have been deleted after all (in which case the Honest Mistake rule would be enforced here, because the Counterterrorism Act is the target of this repeal, but wasn't of the previous one).

So, whichever one of them is in force, therein lies the answer to your question. Obviously, I can't supply it.

Araraukar wrote:It doesn't, and you know it doesn't.

I don't know that. That's what I'm trying to find out. Really, this should not be difficult. This is a computer game. We are not real lawyers. Teenagers play this game.

If a proposal banned state terrorism, would it be illegal for duplication? If it permitted it, would it be illegal for contradiction? This repeal isn't the only possible proposal whose legality would rest on whether the Counterterrorism Act requires that any state terrorist action be ceased. The moderators should be able to give us an answer to that. Otherwise, if we literally can't know what resolutions actually do, there is no coherent way for us to play.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"Modstatus-driven" repeals? What could that even mean? That they only passed because she's a mod?

Nah, it would have passed anyway. The only thing that determines whether a resolution passes is early delegate stacking, absent an absolutely massive - and pricey - TG campaign.

Terrorism haha

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"Modstatus-driven" repeals? What could that even mean? That they only passed because she's a mod?

OOC: Everyone's free to make up their own minds. I stated my opinion long enough ago on that relevant thread, as did many others.

OK...so is that what you meant? That the repeals passed partly because mousey is a mod?

Araraukar wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"Modstatus-driven" repeals? What could that even mean? That they only passed because she's a mod?

OOC: Everyone's free to make up their own minds. I stated my opinion long enough ago on that relevant thread, as did many others.

OOC: I would think that is beyond a stretch.... Is it possible (bear with me here...), just possible that they passed, because Mouse happens to be a good author? Last time I checked, she passed most of her repeals, before she became a mod, unless she has some time travelling capability that the rest of us lack....

Please don't continue to fuel DSR's tantrum, as it is now getting really fucking annoying....

IC: I still can't see where the target resolution bans other than non-state terrorism. Can someone please point it out to me?

Araraukar wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK...so is that what you meant? That the repeals passed partly because mousey is a mod?

Chester Pearson wrote:OOC: I would think that is beyond a stretch.... Is it possible (bear with me here...), just possible that they passed, because Mouse happens to be a good author? Last time I checked, she passed most of her repeals, before she became a mod, unless she has some time travelling capability that the rest of us lack....

OOC: What I said, I said on the relevant thread. Can we please focus on this particular thread now?

OK, since Ara obviously doesn't want to answer the question, does someone else mind tossing me a link to his post in the "relevant thread"?

The Juche states wrote:Terrorism haha

Knock off the spamming, or add something legitimately useful.

---

As there's been so little comment on the actual repeal text, I'm going to start working on the replacement regarding non-state terrorism. I think the easiest way to address it would be to copy and paste a RW resolution on terrorism and just find+replace "UN member" to "WA member", etc.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:As there's been so little comment on the actual repeal text, I'm going to start working on the replacement regarding non-state terrorism. I think the easiest way to address it would be to copy and paste a RW resolution on terrorism and just find+replace "UN member" to "WA member", etc.

So plagiarism is your new strategy now?

Chester Pearson wrote::palm: So plagiarism is your new strategy now?

I know sarcasm is sometimes tough to pick up on the net, but that one flew right over your head didn't it.
How about you consider taking some of your own advice, and "don't continue to fuel DSR's tantrum" - Although you of all ambassadors lecturing anyone on behaviour seems a bit rich to me given your long standing record of deliberately and cynically behaving like a jerk at every possible opportunity.

Aside from all this nonsense, I'm going to actually address the repeal text rather than get bogged down in this petty squabbling that seems to be taking place in this thread. Shocking I know!

Argument: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #25, "WA Counterterrorism Act", was intended to apply only to non-state terrorism,

Regretting that it in fact also applies to state terrorism,

Recognising that this situation should be rectified:

Repeals WA Resolution #25, "WA Counterrorism Act";

You could note the conflict between the definition made in the resolution and clause 6 - the resolution very clearly defines terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors, yet clause 6 recognises terrorism can be performed by state parties. In my mind this conflict is a flaw in the resolution.

Hopes for replacement articles of legislation that treat the issues of non-state terrorism and state terrorism separately.

I'm happy to offer my assistance on drafting replacement legislation if you want it - I'm sure you recall my efforts with Cluchistan(?) all those years ago, but feel free to ignore me if you want.

My governments current stance is of tentative support, but we reserve the right to adjust our position pending the arrival of the replacement draft.

OOC: On top of all those reasons, it would be fun to revisit the area of terrorism again.

Hirota wrote:You could note the conflict between the definition made in the resolution and clause 6 - the resolution very clearly defines terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors, yet clause 6 recognises terrorism can be performed by state parties. In my mind this conflict is a flaw in the resolution.

Hmm. Maybe: that's certainly a novel interpretation, but as we simply don't know what Resolution #293 was referencing, we can only guess. That clause doesn't have any real force: it only "condemns", rather than requiring those condemned states to actually "cease any state terrorist actions".

But it rests on a definition that applies only to non-state actors, though, so it still seems more about state-sponsored terrorism, with states "using" terrorism by sponsoring terrorist actions committed by non-state actors, rather than actually carrying those actions themselves.

I'm happy to offer my assistance on drafting replacement legislation if you want it - I'm sure you recall my efforts with Cluchistan(?) all those years ago,

That would be great. :)

Here's a first draft of the replacement. Most of it is taken from the RL SC Resolution 1373, with "UN" changed to "WA", etc., plus a couple of other minor edits.

The World Assembly,

1. Decides that all WA Member States shall:

1. Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
2. Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;
3. Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities;
4. Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

2. Decides also that all WA Member States shall:

1. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
2. Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other NationStates by exchange of information;
3. Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
4. Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other NationStates or their citizens;
5. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
6. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;
7. Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;

3. Calls upon all WA Member States to:

1. Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
2. Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
3. Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts, subject to the immunities recognised by international law;
4. Take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts;
5. Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists;

4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the World Assembly and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the World Assembly.

Be careful of falling foul of the plagarism rule.

Shouldn't be a problem.

(Leaving discussion of the replacement for elsewhere, are there any other comments on the repeal? If not I may move towards submission)

This dropped off without a single comment after the last bump, so I'm assuming there are no more comments on the draft.

Any thoughts on legality, then? I will ask for a legality check before submission but usually the moderators prefer that players comment first. My position is that the repeal simply restates an argument that has already been ruled as factually accurate, so it can't be an Honest Mistake.

legality?

none.


necessity?


questionable at best

The Dark Star Republic wrote:This dropped off without a single comment after the last bump, so I'm assuming there are no more comments on the draft.

(Entire post OOC)

Here's a comment: I'm not reading through something you ripped off from a RL UN resolution. Also, isn't that plagiarism?

Oh wait, you're talking about the repeal.

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #25, "WA Counterterrorism Act", was intended to apply only to non-state terrorism,

If that was the case, then why does it blatantly condemn state terrorism? That's untrue right there, but as we know, that in itself might not make the proposal illegal.

I don't see any reason to repeal the WA Counterterrorism Act. so ... whatever. You can submit it if you want, but you'll get a Nay from me.

Louisistan wrote:Also, isn't that plagiarism?

It's been allowed before. That said I wouldn't have gone ahead with that replacement, I was just having a poke really.

Anyway:

Louisistan wrote:

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #25, "WA Counterterrorism Act", was intended to apply only to non-state terrorism,

If that was the case, then why does it blatantly condemn state terrorism? That's untrue right there,

No, it's not. That clause was obviously intended to refer to state-sponsored terrorism, given that the definition of terrorism used throughout is limited to non-state actors at the insistence of the co-author:

The Altan Steppes wrote: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.

I suspect looking at the resolution text is not going to help much. The definition creep probably arises from one of the magic invisible clauses.

Louisistan wrote:but as we know, that in itself might not make the proposal illegal.

Yes. Do you think the argument is too "central" to the repeal? That seems to determine when the Honest Mistake rule is invoked. Alternatively, maybe I could just change every clause to "interprets the WA Counterterrorism Act as..." and then it would be a "matter of interpretation"?

Argument: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #25, "WA Counterterrorism Act", was intended to apply only to non-state terrorism,

Regretting that it in fact also applies to state terrorism,

Recognising that this situation should be rectified:

Repeals WA Resolution #25, "WA Counterrorism Act";

Hopes for replacement articles of legislation that treat the issues of non-state terrorism and state terrorism separately.

Isn't something missing there? Like... telling us why banning state terrorism is bad?

Old Hope wrote:Isn't something missing there? Like... telling us why banning state terrorism is bad?

Because the proposal was never intended to do that. Resolutions have quite commonly been repealed where the product did not match the intentions, such as Cultural Heritage Protection and Against Corruption.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Louisistan wrote:Also, isn't that plagiarism?

It's been allowed before. That said I wouldn't have gone ahead with that replacement, I was just having a poke really.

How has it been done before if Frisbeeteria is the the author of both the historic (UNR #49: Rights and Duties of UN States) and current version? Unless you're referring to recycling legislation, then you'd be right. It has clearly been done. When it was the original author reviving their legislative piece.