Repeal/Replace "WA Counterterrorism Act"

[The Dark Star Republic]

Repeal "WA Counterterrorism Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #25 | Proposed by: ???

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.

[Araraukar]

Regretting that it in fact also applies to state terrorism,

It does? I see it preventing "mercenary state terrorism", where nation A would pay nation B to do black-ops-style "terrorist act" in nation C.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

nm.

[Iron Felix]

I would be inclined to oppose your repeal at this time. Could you explain more fully exactly how you feel that GAR #25 "also applies to state terrorism"?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security

[The Dark Star Republic]

The interns have managed to drag the Vice-Colonel away from his vigorous masturbation to address the Chamber on the draft they've produced.

"Our view on this is simply that the WA has, on a number of occasions, repealed legislation where the effect was not what the author intended. In this particular case, the Altani Ambassador repeatedly made it clear that they did not wish to address state terrorism in this resolution (though they were not averse to a separate treatment). Given that the resolution does in fact prohibit state terrorism, the resolution should be repealed."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Iron Felix]

Given that the resolution does in fact prohibit state terrorism, the resolution should be repealed."

But does it really? Simply because you say it is so does not make it so. State your case in more detail, Ambassador.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

nm.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Given that the resolution does in fact prohibit state terrorism, the resolution should be repealed."

But does it really? Simply because you say it is so does not make it so.

"Actually, it kind of does. The WA recently passed legislation stating that this was exactly the effect of the WA Counterterrorism Act:

[W]AR#25, WA Counterterrorism Act, worked to prevent terrorism by helping to coordinate counterterrorism activities and requiring WA member states to cease any state terrorist actions.

"Please bear in mind that up to this point, our delegation considered the WA Counterterrorism Act only to apply to non-state terrorism. Indeed, we felt the definition, which limits the designation of 'terrorism' inherently to non-state actors, meant it couldn't possibly apply to state terrorism; we were also aware of the firm insistence of the original authors not to conflate the two concepts. It was only this recent WA resolution, which was upheld as factually accurate by the Secretariat and hence has the force of law, that opened our eyes to the true situation with respect to WA Resolution #25, and made us aware it needed to be reformed.

"How the resolution addresses state terrorism - I genuinely have no idea. I'm at a complete loss, and none of my drafting aides have provided any illumination. But, clearly, we are wrong, because the WA has already stated it to be the case."

~ Ambassador to the WA Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater

I'm still not getting it. Is the reason this repeal is so short and simple is that you're afraid of the tl;dr effect? Maybe cite exactly why you think state-sponsored terrorism should be handled separately? I could be persuaded by such an argument, if it can be articulated, but it seems like you're not trying to make one.

Partly, yes. It's also partly because I admit I don't understand how the WA Counterterrorism Act applies to state terrorism. So I can't really go into detail on that front.

I also missed your point about Calls For; I've changed to Hopes For.

[Iron Felix]

But does it really? Simply because you say it is so does not make it so.

"Actually, it kind of does. The WA recently passed legislation stating that this was exactly the effect of the WA Counterterrorism Act:

[W]AR#25, WA Counterterrorism Act, worked to prevent terrorism by helping to coordinate counterterrorism activities and requiring WA member states to cease any state terrorist actions.

But Ambassador, that doesn't prove that WAR#25 prohibits state terrorism. It proves that WAR#293 is in error. Sometimes repeals can be passed with erroneous arguments.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security

[The Dark Star Republic]

Sometimes repeals can be passed with erroneous arguments.

"That repeal was extensively vetted. If there were an erroneous argument, it would have been removed. It was instead permitted to go to vote. That forces us to recognise its arguments as legally valid and, in turn, to try to work out how Resolution #25 concerns itself with 'state terrorism' and how to resolve the situation. If you'd care to help with that I would obviously greatly appreciate your input given your delegation's formidable legislative history and, from what I hear, your own more than passing familiarity with the tactics of state terrorism - but if not, then this head-in-the-sand approach isn't going to earn much sympathy from me."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

nm.

[The Dark Star Republic]

WACTA (is that the proper alphabet soup for #25?) does indeed require nations to cease sponsorship of terrorism - and further prohibits nations from lending any support to terrorists in other countries or persons seeking to commit acts of terror in other countries. I'd care to know what exactly is wrong with that approach? (Aside from your contention that the author didn't intend to address state-sponsored terror?) What should the WA do differently to more effectively combat state-sponsored terror?

OOC: That kind of has it backwards. The repeal is arguing the resolution should be repealed because it does more than intended - "criminalising state terrorism" could restrict legitimate foreign policy actions that should properly be treated under the laws of war, not as terrorist actions - not less than intended. The repeal isn't taking any issue with how the resolution state-sponsored terrorism. Honestly, I would imagine any replacement being functionally identical - the only change would be, once we work out what part of the original addresses state terrorism, excluding that section.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

nm.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Are these the provisions you're referring to, or do you believe there is something else embedded in the text, which inadvertently lumps state actors in with "non-state actors"?

OOC: I have no idea. As I've said, I really didn't think the resolution did address state terrorism at all, and didn't see how it possibly could, so it was definitely a surprise to me. According to Mallorea it derives from:

This is a point based around the definitions found in GAR #25. The final line of the proposal reads: "7) REQUIRES any member nation employing terrorism to immediately cease and desist."

I don't really see how that changes anything, given the internal definition of "terrorism" is still inherently limited to non-state actors, but as I've admitted, I was clearly wrong in my original position.

Some resolutions have magic, invisible clauses though - so this may be one of them. In any case, I don't think it's safe to leave on the books a resolution that confuses things by mixing state terrorism up with legislation that was meant to be about non-state actors.

[Chester Pearson]

Some resolutions have magic, invisible clauses though

Uh huh.... Those clauses just appear out of thin air right?

[Araraukar]

Some resolutions have magic, invisible clauses though

I'm not sure basing your repeal on the errors of another repeal is going to be a winning ticket.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm not sure basing your repeal on the errors of another repeal is going to be a winning ticket.

OOC: What else am I supposed to do?

I get eaten alive for disagreeing with Mousebumples (delegate of the great and noble region of Europeiea, supreme summit of all that is truly outstanding about the human race); now I can't catch a break when I admit I was wrong and agree with the arguments of Mousebumples (whose region, Europeiea, is perhaps the single finest contribution to culture ever achieved since the erection of the pyramids themselves, whose flourishing intellectual vibrancy would be the rival of the Solvay Conference itself, O, let us sing songs of their praise).

There is no point crying about Resolution #293: it was ruled legal, it passed, and it's been written into law. It's time to move on and accept it, and this repeal is a necessary step in doing so, given that that Resolution uncovered a previously unnoticed critical flaw in a Resolution that had lain largely unchallenged for over five years - five, as many as the number of times I look up the heavens every morning, and give thanks for living in a world blessed by the presence of Europeiea, and acknowledge how lucky I am simply to be able to gaze upon their magnificence.

[Chester Pearson]

I'm not sure basing your repeal on the errors of another repeal is going to be a winning ticket.

OOC: What else am I supposed to do?

I get eaten alive for disagreeing with Mousebumples (delegate of the great and noble region of Europeiea, supreme summit of all that is truly outstanding about the human race); now I can't catch a break when I admit I was wrong and agree with the arguments of Mousebumples (whose region, Europeiea, is perhaps the single finest contribution to culture ever achieved since the erection of the pyramids themselves, whose flourishing intellectual vibrancy would be the rival of the Solvay Conference itself, O, let us sing songs of their praise).

Boy... You sure know how to wow them, and win support for your cause don't you?

Has it ever occurred to you, that you may be the problem?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: What else am I supposed to do?

I get eaten alive for disagreeing with Mousebumples (delegate of the great and noble region of Europeiea, supreme summit of all that is truly outstanding about the human race); now I can't catch a break when I admit I was wrong and agree with the arguments of Mousebumples (whose region, Europeiea, is perhaps the single finest contribution to culture ever achieved since the erection of the pyramids themselves, whose flourishing intellectual vibrancy would be the rival of the Solvay Conference itself, O, let us sing songs of their praise).

Boy... You sure know how to wow them, and win support for your cause don't you? :rofl:

Has it ever occurred to you, that you may be the problem?

Of course. I must be the problem; the awesome and incredible region of Europeiea (all praise and glory in its name!) is completely flawless and beyond question. As to what that problem is, though, I'm still in the dark - but, that properly belongs in the Repeal NEF thread, where I'm still hopefully waiting for Mouse to get back to me about my query.

For this thread, I'd rather concentrate on working out how Resolution #25 prevents "state terrorist actions".

[Araraukar]

For this thread, I'd rather concentrate on working out how Resolution #25 prevents "state terrorist actions".

OOC: It doesn't, and you know it doesn't. As for the attempts at ass-kissing Europeia, I don't think it's going to work because there's such a thing as sarcasm, and I'm sure it's fairly concentrated on your posts. It's most likely nothing to do with your comments about the region and all the do with your opposition of Mouse's modstatus-driven repeals. I'm sure she'd get everyone and everything to stack against anything I proposed as well.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: A passed resolution isn't necessarily correct, it's just legal. I'm not sure as to the seriousness of your endeavor here(and given your posts in the thread so far I think we can all see where you're going with this). However, I'd like to point out that this repeal would probably be ruled illegal under the "honest mistake" clause, as its single central argument is conclusively false. You could avoid that problem by including some arguments to support your assertion(of which there are in fact a few), and likely including a few other reasons for the repeal to dilute your reliance on the questionable (but arguably true) statement.

Then again I believe the point of this thread was to bait people into opposing your piece and then pointing out that your reasoning was the same as a repeal you failed to get shot down, right? If so, it's a bad example. The repeal you're trying to criticize here included other arguments. Yours does not. Clean it up, expand the arguments, and take the advice of those that've posted already (namely, explain how it might outlaw state terrorism).

As a side note: maybe make peace with whatever has made you so unpleasant to talk to. Mouse has more experience than you do. That's why she was able to make it work, and keep her proposal on the right side of the rules. Follow her lead and maybe stop pissing off the big delegates (you think they don't read anything here, but it isn't just Euro that is getting tired of the way you've been behaving). Legislation was never so much about what's right and wrong, it's about politics, and you're being terrible at it. You can't make the changes that help others if you can't get anything passed anymore. You can disagree respectfully and thoughtfully. And when a mod decision doesn't go your way, move on. Don't do stuff like this thread.

[Sciongrad]

However, I'd like to point out that this repeal would probably be ruled illegal under the "honest mistake" clause,

OOC: Oh, is that rule still being enforced?

EDIT: I initially only wanted to post the one snarky comment, but this argument here actually just caused my left arm to fall off:

You could avoid that problem by including some arguments to support your assertion(of which there are in fact a few), and likely including a few other reasons for the repeal to dilute your reliance on the questionable (but arguably true) statement.

[The Dourian Embassy]

However, I'd like to point out that this repeal would probably be ruled illegal under the "honest mistake" clause,

OOC: Oh, is that rule still being enforced?

EDIT: I initially only wanted to post the one snarky comment, but this argument here actually just caused my left arm to fall off:

You could avoid that problem by including some arguments to support your assertion(of which there are in fact a few), and likely including a few other reasons for the repeal to dilute your reliance on the questionable (but arguably true) statement.

OOC: See it's comments like this that lead me to the conclusion that you guys either never actually read or never internalized the ruling.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Oh, is that rule still being enforced?

EDIT: I initially only wanted to post the one snarky comment, but this argument here actually just caused my left arm to fall off:

OOC: See it's comments like this that lead me to the conclusion that you guys either never actually read or never internalized the ruling.

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. There is a very big difference between not reading the ruling in question and questioning whether the relevant ruling has any basis in logic. Mall did compare it to the duplication rule, where minor overlap can occur, but he failed to ever explain how the honest mistake exemption is similar to the duplication exemption. The only reason the duplication exemption exists is because it serves a practical purpose (that is, preventing the WA from inadvertently closing off entire policy issues by accidentally covering them in broad details with previous resolutions, e.g. International Drug Education passing despite minor overlap with Universal Clinical Trials Act) yet no similar explanation was given for the honest mistake exemption other than a comparison between the two exemptions without any further detail. I've definitely read the ruling, yet after all this time, I still don't understand it.