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From what I can see, the legislation that exists (and hasn't been repealed) is all about dealing with terrorism that takes place against another nation.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