Comments/Discussion : Intnl Support of Domestic Terrorism

[Calladan]

(Ambassador McGill comes to the floor, stands behind the podium, then starts talking somewhat quietly)

While I realise most of what I am about to say was prompted by a fairly badly written proposal about guns, and the fact we should stop "international terrorists" getting their hands on them, it did get me to thinking about the topic of international versus domestic terrorism, and that got me to reviewing existing WA legislation (which mostly involved a search for the word "terrorist" on passed Resolutions).

From what I can see, the legislation that exists (and hasn't been repealed) is all about dealing with terrorism that takes place against another nation. WAR (which, as acronyms go, is kind of ironic in this situation) #25 seems to be the only one that deals specifically with this (other resolutions mention it but don't deal with terrorism directly - they are more about terrorism in the context of other topics) and it is entirely centred around laws that stop acts of international terrorism, and the provision of funding, support and other related things.

However - and this is where my request for comments and suggestions and assistance comes in - from what I can tell, it doesn't prevent member states from providing funding and support to citizens of other member states who want to engage in terrorism against their own people.

Clause 1a reads

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

but does that mean Miss Taylor may not conspire within the borders of Arendelle to aid, abet (etc) acts of terrorism against Misthaven from within the borders of Arendelle OR does that mean Miss Taylor may not conspire with people within the borders of Misthaven to aid, abet (etc) acts of terrorism against Misthaven.

(The difference being the location of the people committing the acts of terror - in the first instance it would be Arendelle citizens attacking Misthaven, in the second, it would be Misthaven citizens attacking Misthaven).

The other clauses are (at least from my view, which could be entirely mistaken) equally open to interpretation - when it says "assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation" does it mean citizens from one nation attacking another nation, or does it mean providing assistance to any party that will attack any other nation, including the nation from which that party originates?

The original debate on the Resolution suggests it was created just to tackle international terrorism (terrorism that crosses nation borders) and not to "get the WA too involved in the inner problems and struggles of nations" (an actual quote from the debate).

However, if the definitions are as strict as I believe them to be - that if citizens of Misthaven engage in terrorism inside Misthaven then it does not class as "international terrorism" and therefore would not be covered by this Resolution - I believe there is a loophole in the Resolution that would allow terrorist groups of one nation (whether government backed or not) to fund, aid and support terrorist groups in another without breaking the law (well - without breaking the law as defined by this resolution).

As such, I have come to you today to ask two things.

First - am I right? Is this a problem, or am I just whistling in the dark?

Secondly - if I am right, would there by any support for a Resolution to close this loophole? It would not replace WAR #25 (because I would not want to repeal such a well written piece of legislation) but merely deal with the specific problem that it doesn't deal with.

I know that (based on what else I have seen here) I should probably write a draft and bring here for review/comment/dissection/etc, because - as with all things - the devil is in the details - but I before I put the time and effort into that, I thought I would canvas the opinions of the WA member states first, just in case - as I said - it turns out I am being a bit of a fool.

Thank you for your time.

WAR #25
Floor debate on WAR #25

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'd would support a repeal and replace based on the deeply flawed definition of terrorism resting on a definition of civilian which includes all sorts of militias, paramilitaries and various thugs.

[Draconae]

"Ambassador McGill, I believe you could be right. While the definitions are mostly okay, the way they are used in the body of the resolution does leave it open for it to be interpreted that way and also allows for false flag attacks on one's own nation. Overall, I would probably be more supportive of a repeal and replace to rectify the issues in the resolution than another resolution to patch it."

OOC: I was going to write a longer post, but this got complicated quickly.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Isn't a nation sponsoring foreign domestic terrorists aiding terrorists across borders, and thus international terrorism? As our government sees it, only aiding and abetting terrorism within your own state is allowed by GA#25." Blackbourne replies.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is this supposed to be a repeal or a new proposal? Either way the title is 13 marks too long: you're allowed 30 marks, which includes spaces.

[Calladan]

OOC: Is this supposed to be a repeal or a new proposal? Either way the title is 13 marks too long: you're allowed 30 marks, which includes spaces.

To be honest, it was just a request for comment. I didn't want to suggest a repeal if there wasn't a problem in the first place, and I didn't want to suggest a new proposal if there was a need for a repeal.

(There doesn't seem to be a place for discussing previous WARs in the GA forum - just posting drafts of new ones. I don't know if this was by design or whether old WARs never get discussed - they just fade into the background and only get thrown up when there are possible violations. But like I said - I was just asking questions before I went one way or the other).

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'd love to see a repeal of this mess and get something that bans state terrorism."

[Araraukar]

There doesn't seem to be a place for discussing previous WARs in the GA forum - just posting drafts of new ones. I don't know if this was by design or whether old WARs never get discussed - they just fade into the background and only get thrown up when there are possible violations.

OOC: Well, the thing is that once a resolution has passed, it is the law. In real life existing laws don't really get discussed about (in the governmental organ that actually makes laws), unless people are wanting to change them (which for us means repeal and replace).

But like I said - I was just asking questions before I went one way or the other.

You might then want to title this differently. "RFC" doesn't readily translate into "request for comments" or whatever.

[Calladan]

There doesn't seem to be a place for discussing previous WARs in the GA forum - just posting drafts of new ones. I don't know if this was by design or whether old WARs never get discussed - they just fade into the background and only get thrown up when there are possible violations.

OOC: Well, the thing is that once a resolution has passed, it is the law. In real life existing laws don't really get discussed about (in the governmental organ that actually makes laws), unless people are wanting to change them (which for us means repeal and replace).

But like I said - I was just asking questions before I went one way or the other.

You might then want to title this differently. "RFC" doesn't readily translate into "request for comments" or whatever.

Oh - sorry. But for pretty much my entire professional life I have seen "request for comment" abbreviated to RFC so it is pretty much a force of habit.

And - like I said - I didn't think just barging ahead with a repeal or another resolution was wise, since I had no clue if it was warranted.
(OOC - it's how you submit request for comments for coding stuff and how we do it for work).

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Well, the thing is that once a resolution has passed, it is the law. In real life existing laws don't really get discussed about (in the governmental organ that actually makes laws), unless people are wanting to change them (which for us means repeal and replace).


You might then want to title this differently. "RFC" doesn't readily translate into "request for comments" or whatever.

Oh - sorry. But for pretty much my entire professional life I have seen "request for comment" abbreviated to RFC so it is pretty much a force of habit.

Don't change it, its a great system. Or change it back, I guess. RFC is a good system, and we currently don't have anything but the General Assembly Q/A thread to work with, which shouldn't be for detailed questions like this anyway. Establish your own system! Blaze the trail! Tally ho!

[Araraukar]

Establish your own system! Blaze the trail! Tally ho!

...says the Patron Saint of Bad Ideas.

[Excidium Planetis]

Oh - sorry. But for pretty much my entire professional life I have seen "request for comment" abbreviated to RFC so it is pretty much a force of habit.

OOC: Well, Ara is from Finland... don't expect acronyms to translate all the time.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Oh - sorry. But for pretty much my entire professional life I have seen "request for comment" abbreviated to RFC so it is pretty much a force of habit.

OOC: Well, Ara is from Finland... don't expect acronyms to translate all the time.

OOC: Honestly, I'm British and I didn't get it. As for the actual suggestion, I'll need to check existing WA legislation before giving an opinion, which may take a while on account of my laziness.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Honestly, I'm British and I didn't get it.

OOC: I'm British too, and didn't understand what the Royal Flying Corps had to do with this situation...

^_^

[Calladan]

I promise you that it is a thing, but since the thread was getting a little bit off my intended topic and into a semantic discussion, I was hoping to return to the original discussion - is there enough confusion in the original resolution (WAR #25) about what "International Terrorism" is to justify repealing it (or at least attempting a repeal) or to try writing a proposal to deal with the funding of domestic terrorism in another country?

[Bananaistan]

...is there enough confusion in the original resolution (WAR #25) about what "International Terrorism" is to justify repealing it (or at least attempting a repeal) ...?

OOC: My opinion: no there isn't. I think's adequately clear that if Joe and Bob are sitting in Bananaistan and plan/aid/abet/conspire/whatever a terrorist attack in Calladan that this would be international terrorism. I also think it's clear that if Joe in Bananaistan and Johnny in Calladan plan/aid/abet/conspire/whatever a terrorist attack in Calladan that this would also be international terrorism.

However, there are other repeal hooks, such as my issue with how it classifies everyone other than police and army, even other terrorists, as civilian. Having said that, definitions A, C & D in the resolution are rather excellent IMO, particularly how the definition of terrorism refers to "for the purpose of creating fear or terror" and "committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants". My only issue on this point is that if there are auxiliary members of armed forces or police, or paramilitaries, or other "civil" societies engaging in oppression against members of a particular group, perhaps those of a different ethnicity or religion, all these non-police and non-army individuals are civilians and some (if not most) defensive action by the oppressed group against these "civilians" would be classified as terrorism by this resolution.

But, this relates to an incredibly limited set of circumstances, and perhaps it's not unreasonable for the WA to say that attacks against police and army for the purposes of creating fear or terror are OK, but attacks against other terrorists, or thugs, or paramilitaries for the purposes of creating fear or terror are not OK. Or one might say that retaliatory attacks against other terrorists, thugs, or paramilitaries are not for the purposes of creating fear or terror but for the purposes of killing or beating the crap out of the other terrorists, thugs or paramilitaries. And therefore, members of the oppressed ethnic or religious group in another state would be free to help out as they see fit.

There is also the long standing issue of the definition of terrorism explicitly referring to actions by non-state actors while clauses 6 & 7 refer to states. If terrorism by its definition cannot be conducted by a state, then how can a state use it or stop using it?

[States of Glory WA Office]

There is also the long standing issue of the definition of terrorism explicitly referring to actions by non-state actors while clauses 6 & 7 refer to states. If terrorism by its definition cannot be conducted by a state, then how can a state use it or stop using it?

OOC: Oh, thank goodness. I had the same thought but I never saw any of the regulars bring it up and I was convinced that I had gone mad.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
There is also the long standing issue of the definition of terrorism explicitly referring to actions by non-state actors while clauses 6 & 7 refer to states. If terrorism by its definition cannot be conducted by a state, then how can a state use it or stop using it?

OOC: Just because it cannot be called terrorism in a legal sense doesn't make state actions in that realm any less terrorism.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just because it cannot be called terrorism in a legal sense doesn't make state actions in that realm any less terrorism.

OOC: But then no resolution addressing terrorism would have any effect on terror done by the state? Or do you mean it only can't be called terrorism in legal sense when it comes to the existing resolution?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Just because it cannot be called terrorism in a legal sense doesn't make state actions in that realm any less terrorism.

OOC: But then no resolution addressing terrorism would have any effect on terror done by the state? Or do you mean it only can't be called terrorism in legal sense when it comes to the existing resolution?

OOC: The wording is such that actions by the state can't be considered terrorism, even if they meet all the hallmarks of it, and are not addressed by the resolution. Some forms of state terrorism, such as torture and forced kidnappings, have been addressed, but actions that the state uses specifically to terrorize domestic or foreign populations have not been systematically approached.

[Hannasea]

OOC: Sorry to chime in OOC, Calladan, I would have liked to contribute IC to this thread, but I'm not going to contributing IC until that Security Council ruling is revoked and it's safe to go back in the water.

I'd love to see a repeal of this mess and get something that bans state terrorism.

When did the mods revoke their ruling that it did ban state terrorism?

[Tinfect]

OOC: Sorry to chime in OOC, Calladan, I would have liked to contribute IC to this thread, but I'm not going to contributing IC until that Security Council ruling is revoked and it's safe to go back in the water.

OOC:
Hold up, what SC ruling?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Sorry to chime in OOC, Calladan, I would have liked to contribute IC to this thread, but I'm not going to contributing IC until that Security Council ruling is revoked and it's safe to go back in the water.

I'd love to see a repeal of this mess and get something that bans state terrorism.

When did the mods revoke their ruling that it did ban state terrorism?

OOC: Hold up, when did they rule it did? Last I recall, state terrorism wasn't covered.

[Hannasea]

OOC: Sorry to chime in OOC, Calladan, I would have liked to contribute IC to this thread, but I'm not going to contributing IC until that Security Council ruling is revoked and it's safe to go back in the water.

When did the mods revoke their ruling that it did ban state terrorism?

OOC: Hold up, when did they rule it did? Last I recall, state terrorism wasn't covered.

OOC: The ruling was posted here.

[Calladan]

Good morning,

The general feeling appears to be that while my concerns about WAR #25 not dealing with "extra-national" funding of domestic terrorism were somewhat unfounded, there are enough potential reasons to attempt a repeal of the resolution because it has some questionable elements in it.

The most obvious of which seems to be this :-

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.

The resolution makes it startlingly clear that terrorism is violence that is performed by people who are not acting on behalf of the state. (Or at least, in terms of the resolution, that's what it makes clear). So anyone acting on behalf of the state and partaking in acts of violence, ergo, can not be a terrorist. Or - at least - cannot be a terrorist in relation to this resolution.

Which renders Clauses 6 & 7 somewhat bemusing.

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

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

If terrorism can only be performed by "non-state actors" then by its very definition, states can not perform, use, employ or otherwise engage in it - at least not as it is defined within this resolution. (There is every change they can use/perform/engage in terrorism as most people understand the phrase, but that's a whole different matter).

However, despite the fact there are potential grounds for a repeal, and even potential successful grounds for a repeal (or potential grounds for a successful repeal) I think I am of the opinion that this does more good than harm where it is at the moment, and since you can't do a "repeal & replace" in one go, repealing it would be a bad idea.

So while I thank you all for contributing to the discussion, and I think it has been a useful discussion in general (in that it hasn't been a total waste of time, and didn't degenerate into name-calling and hair-pulling!), I think that leaving it where it is is probably the best approach at the moment.

Thank you.