[PASSED] Repeal "Habeas Corpus"

[Quelesh]

And the repeal has passed. Thank you to everyone who supported it!

I'm surprised I haven't seen more (or any, really) repeal attempts on this one. GAR67 is well-intentioned, but it really doesn't do what it sets out to do, and it has several massive flaws. I think it should be repealed and replaced by a more effective resolution.

By the way, I absolutely intend to submit a replacement once the repeal passes. Here is the draft thread for the replacement. (Edit: There are now two replacements, one with core habeas corpus protections and one on double jeopardy. Here is the double jeopardy draft.)

The Assembled Nations of the World,

CONVINCED of the right of individuals to be free from illegal or unjust detention;

APPLAUDING the intent of this body to uphold that right when it passed General Assembly Resolution #67, "Habeas Corpus;"

however, DEEPLY TROUBLED by several flaws in the aforementioned resolution that render it ineffective in several areas;

TERRIBLY VEXED that the aforementioned resolution explicitly allows double jeopardy, the practice of trying an individual more than once for the same offense;

FURTHER VEXED that the aforementioned resolution imposes minimal obstacles to the unfettered use of double jeopardy, merely requiring the approval of a person who is "duly authorised by the legal system" to grant a "full legal authorisation for a retrial," essentially allowing for indefinite retrials, continuing to detain the individual all the while, until the court hands down a verdict favorable to the state;

DISTURBED that the aforementioned resolution allows the arbitrary detention, with no suspicion of wrongdoing, of an individual for up to twenty-four hours in any week, with minimal restrictions and with nothing to prevent repeated arbitrary detention for twenty four hours during every week indefinitely as a form of harassment or extra-legal punishment;

STUNNED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after an acquittal;

FLABBERGASTED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after his or her criminal sentence has been completed;

NOTING WITH CONSTERNATION that the aforementioned resolution does not actually require member states to allow detained individuals to challenge their detention, much less set any standards for such challenges;

DESIROUS of a resolution that effectively grants the right of habeas corpus to every individual under World Assembly jurisdiction, but cognizant that such a resolution cannot be passed until GAR67 is repealed;

hereby REPEAL General Assembly Resolution #67, "Habeas Corpus."

Character count: 2,130

Comments are welcome.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Otrenia]

I must say at when I first saw this repeal I was incredulous. However upon reading the repeal and seeing that you do intend to make a replacement then you have our full support.

[Quelesh]

I must say at when I first saw this repeal I was incredulous. However upon reading the repeal and seeing that you do intend to make a replacement then you have our full support.

I appreciate your support. Let's hope that others as well Read the Resolution before deciding!

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'll do everyone a favor and save the bloviated version of a response I originally started drafting to this.

My basic objection to the repeal is, with one exception, all of the things you raise as flaws in the resolution aren't part of the concept of habeas corpus AND could be dealt with in a separate resolution on double jeapordy.

Habeas corpus, at root, is a fairly basic concept. Someone other than the police -- someone like hopefully neutral judge -- has to approve of your being detained under legal procedures. That is both its importantance and its simplicity. To borrow another explanation:

Actually, habeas is perfectly straightforward. It is the ancient right of anyone seized by the king to cry out from the dungeon and say, "I've been wrongly jailed!" Then you get a chance to prove your claim before a neutral judge, or back to the pokey you go. Habeas puts a basic check on the most fearsome power of the state and any citizen's most primal fear—being locked away and forgotten, the civil equivalent of being buried alive.

Your "Noting With Consternation" line points out that GAR #67 (which I did study before commenting here) doesn't actually alone the detained to challenge their detention. That is a good point. GAR #67 does, however, make such a challenge unnecessary because all the safeguards such a challenge would provide must be complied with automatically.

Most importantly, I want to reiterate that you raise good points about what GAR #67 does not do. However, the solution is not to repeal GAR #67. The solution is to pass another resolution that addresses your concerns, specifically those concerned with due process.

I hope this is helpful. Your concerns are in the right place, but I'm not convinced they are correctly aimed.

The source for my quote is this article.

On a substantive note, this makes for turgid reading, but you should read the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. It still stands as the root of the idea of what habeas corpus requires and you will see that it is closely followed (whether by design or not) by GAR #67.

[Monikian WA Mission]

We'd support this if the resolution only contained ABBA lyrics.

[Quelesh]

My basic objection to the repeal is, with one exception, all of the things you raise as flaws in the resolution aren't part of the concept of habeas corpus AND could be dealt with in a separate resolution on double jeapordy.

It's probably true that it would be possible to write another resolution prohibiting the continued detention of individuals after an acquittal or after their sentence has been completed. However, as GAR67 explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy, any resolution prohibiting double jeopardy would be illegal for contradiction. That was an issue when I was drafting the ICC resolution. In the final version, I have a clause saying that no person acquitted by the ICC can be tried again by the ICC for the same offense. In the original draft, it was "by the ICC or by any member state" for the same offense, but I was told by a mod that that would be illegal for contradicting GAR67, since that resolution explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy.

In order to ban double jeopardy, I don't see an alternative but to repeal GAR67.

I also don't see any other way of addressing the 24-hours-every-week issue.

Also, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 that you linked to was stuffy reading, and I'll admit I skimmed over parts of it, but I noticed that it did prohibit the continued detention of individuals after acquittal or the completion of sentence.

You do make a good point, though, that since compliance is assumed to be automatic, no legal challenges would be necessary, since there presumeably would be no illegal detention going on anyway. Nations could still detain people in contradiction of national law, though. A good habeas resolution could simply prohibit that, or there could be some mechanism for legal challenge.

[Navarelin]

Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

[Flibbleites]

Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

[Wartom]

Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

[Defendingg]

Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

This why we shouldn't try to repeal resolutions based on the text, because only the effect matters.

This proves that if you attempt to repeal Habeas Corpus, then you must have something against it.

[Flibbleites]

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

No, only resolutions that pass while you're a member affect you, leading to the old tactic of temporarily dropping WA membership in order to avoid the effects of a resolution that you don't like.

[Mousebumples]

Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

No, only resolutions that pass while you're a member affect you, leading to the old tactic of temporarily dropping WA membership in order to avoid the effects of a resolution that you don't like.

However, if you try to RP that your nation isn't affected by Resolution X that was passed before you joined, you'll likely get a number of Ignore Cannons fired in your direction.

(However, Flib is absolutely correct when it comes to statistical effects of resolutions. )

[The Cat-Tribe]

Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

I am disappointed that someone in a position of authority such as yourself would take what is an incredibly cynical view, a clearly biased one, and a highly arguable one and pass it off to a new nation as "truth."

Apparently, we waste our time writing resolutions. The Secretariat wastes its time promulgating rules for resolutions and enforcing said rules regarding content of resolutions. The "Read the Resolution Act" is a moot joke. Etc, etc, etc.

For some reason, I expected better.

Navarelin, resolutions have an undeniable effect on all WA member nation's statistics. What effect they have on "the game" beyond that depends a lot on what you mean by "the game" and is subject to differing opinions. Flibbleites is giving an opinion, not stating a fact.

[The Cat-Tribe]

My basic objection to the repeal is, with one exception, all of the things you raise as flaws in the resolution aren't part of the concept of habeas corpus AND could be dealt with in a separate resolution on double jeapordy.

It's probably true that it would be possible to write another resolution prohibiting the continued detention of individuals after an acquittal or after their sentence has been completed. However, as GAR67 explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy, any resolution prohibiting double jeopardy would be illegal for contradiction. That was an issue when I was drafting the ICC resolution. In the final version, I have a clause saying that no person acquitted by the ICC can be tried again by the ICC for the same offense. In the original draft, it was "by the ICC or by any member state" for the same offense, but I was told by a mod that that would be illegal for contradicting GAR67, since that resolution explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy.

In order to ban double jeopardy, I don't see an alternative but to repeal GAR67.

I also don't see any other way of addressing the 24-hours-every-week issue.

Also, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 that you linked to was stuffy reading, and I'll admit I skimmed over parts of it, but I noticed that it did prohibit the continued detention of individuals after acquittal or the completion of sentence.

You do make a good point, though, that since compliance is assumed to be automatic, no legal challenges would be necessary, since there presumeably would be no illegal detention going on anyway. Nations could still detain people in contradiction of national law, though. A good habeas resolution could simply prohibit that, or there could be some mechanism for legal challenge.

GAR#67 allows for double jeapordy to occur. It doesn't prevent it. It does not protect it either. If a Mod said it did and that no anti-double jeapordy resolution could be written because of GAR #67, I'd like to see that comment or ruling, because it was wrong.

[Quelesh]

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

This why we shouldn't try to repeal resolutions based on the text, because only the effect matters.

This proves that if you attempt to repeal Habeas Corpus, then you must have something against it.

That's not the case. I draft proposals and base my support or opposition to proposals on the IC effects of the proposal text, not on the gameplay stat effects (with the exception of Moral Decency proposals, which I generally despise). My desire to repeal GAR67 is not evidence of any opposition on my part to the gameplay stat effects of the Human Rights category (especially since I plan to replace it with another resolution, likely in the same category, not to mention the fact that the two resolutions I have so far passed have both been in the Human Rights category).

GAR#67 allows for double jeapordy to occur. It doesn't prevent it. It does not protect it either. If a Mod said it did and that no anti-double jeapordy resolution could be written because of GAR #67, I'd like to see that comment or ruling, because it was wrong.

Here is the post by Nerv in my ICC drafting thread that mentions the double jeopardy issue. If a clause in the ICC resolution prohibiting double jeopardy only in certain circumstances (for people acquitted by the ICC) is illegal for contradiction, then a broader resolution banning double jeopardy entirely would certainly also be illegal.

The forbidding of retrial to member nations conflicts with resolution 67 (Habeas Corpus) as it allows for the retrial of nationals

I would like it to be wrong, and if the mods tell me it is, I would be happy to draft a new resolution banning double jeopardy and filling the holes in GAR67 without bothering with a repeal, but if Nerv's post stands, a repeal would be necessary.

[Flibbleites]

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

I am disappointed that someone in a position of authority such as yourself would take what is an incredibly cynical view, a clearly biased one, and a highly arguable one and pass it off to a new nation as "truth."

Oh please, I was speaking that as far as the game code is concerned that's all that matters, something that from what I can see everyone, except for you perhaps, was able to understand.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am disappointed that someone in a position of authority such as yourself would take what is an incredibly cynical view, a clearly biased one, and a highly arguable one and pass it off to a new nation as "truth."

Oh please, I was speaking that as far as the game code is concerned that's all that matters, something that from what I can see everyone, except for you perhaps, was able to understand.

I am glad to hear I misunderstood and you did not mean what I thought you meant. I apologize if I overreacted, but I do think you could have and should have been clearer.

[Ardchoille]

If you find a statement unclear, one thing you should ask yourself is: IC or OOC? Flib's post above was plainly OOC, as it was posted as himself, and he was giving a clear explanation of the practical effects of the game code. When he is posting IC he usually posts as Bob Flibble.

In general, player or mod comments on the (roleplayed) effects of (roleplayed) legislation can usually be taken as IC. For example:

OOC: Habeas Corpus increases a nation's Civil Rights rating.

IC: Habeas Corpus protects people against indefinite detention without charge.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you find a statement unclear, one thing you should ask yourself is: IC or OOC? Flib's post above was plainly OOC, as it was posted as himself, and he was giving a clear explanation of the practical effects of the game code. When he is posting IC he usually posts as Bob Flibble.

In general, player or mod comments on the (roleplayed) effects of (roleplayed) legislation can usually be taken as IC. For example:

OOC: Habeas Corpus increases a nation's Civil Rights rating.

IC: Habeas Corpus protects people against indefinite detention without charge.

I appreciate the clarification and repeat and strengthen my apology for misunderstanding Flib's post.

It does seem a bit unrealistic to expect someone who asked the question that was asked to necessarily recognize these nuances in evaluating Flib's post, however. Again, my mistake was just stupidity, but others less might not get the distinction between different types of "voices from on high" when they aren't clear.

[Neaglia]

My government disposes of dissidents through gladiatorial combat, how will this affect us?

[Morlago]

Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

No, only resolutions that pass while you're a member affect you, leading to the old tactic of temporarily dropping WA membership in order to avoid the effects of a resolution that you don't like.

I've been thinking about this. So this would mean that anything passed before Jun 2009 would not be applicable to me. This is a big loophole and the next time somebody quote a resolution like CoCR, I can just shrug my shoulders and say "before my time". Can we right a resolution about it, or would that be illegal due to Game Mechanics/Metagaming?

Regarding this repeal, we would like to see the replacement first before deciding, but so far, based on the repeal, we are most likely going to support it.

[Ardchoille]

I've been thinking about this. So this would mean that anything passed before Jun 2009 would not be applicable to me. This is a big loophole and the next time somebody quote a resolution like CoCR, I can just shrug my shoulders and say "before my time".

This is another yes-and-no answer. OOC, it's just as Flib told you. But when you're IC -- look, do you think the Pope is going to say, to all the babies who are at this moment being baptised, "Oh, that stuff about Original Sin came in before you were around, so you can disregard it"? Or you don't have to obey road rules because they were made before you were old enough to get a licence? The Masons aren't going to let you in if you say you'll only accept this year's precepts. Likewise the WA. It's a legislative body and your nation, by joining it, accepts its laws in good faith.

In short, yes, you can shrug your shoulders, but if your nation does it, it's point-and-laugh time.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Here is the post by Nerv in my ICC drafting thread that mentions the double jeopardy issue. If a clause in the ICC resolution prohibiting double jeopardy only in certain circumstances (for people acquitted by the ICC) is illegal for contradiction, then a broader resolution banning double jeopardy entirely would certainly also be illegal.

The forbidding of retrial to member nations conflicts with resolution 67 (Habeas Corpus) as it allows for the retrial of nationals

I would like it to be wrong, and if the mods tell me it is, I would be happy to draft a new resolution banning double jeopardy and filling the holes in GAR67 without bothering with a repeal, but if Nerv's post stands, a repeal would be necessary.

I would agree with The Cat Tribe that Nerv's ruling was wrong, but only because of a highly nuanced interpretation. Habeas Corpus does speak of retrials, but only insofar as who is able to issue a retrial and when they can issue it.

8) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.

One could make a simple argument that this clause implies an allowance for retrial. However, in my reading, I believe it simply recognizes that some member nations may not employ double jeopardy. I think it simply says that at minimum the World Assembly should place some restrictions until we decide whether or not to enforce double jeopardy in international law. Even with a ruling that the clause does create an authorization for retrial, it is still entirely possible to enforce double jeopardy. In that case, the World Assembly would be removing the legal authorization of individuals to issue retrial in certain circumstances, which is in full compliance with the second clause of the section.

[Jedi Utopians]

I've been thinking about this. So this would mean that anything passed before Jun 2009 would not be applicable to me. This is a big loophole and the next time somebody quote a resolution like CoCR, I can just shrug my shoulders and say "before my time".

This is another yes-and-no answer. OOC, it's just as Flib told you. But when you're IC -- look, do you think the Pope is going to say, to all the babies who are at this moment being baptised, "Oh, that stuff about Original Sin came in before you were around, so you can disregard it"? Or you don't have to obey road rules because they were made before you were old enough to get a licence? The Masons aren't going to let you in if you say you'll only accept this year's precepts. Likewise the WA. It's a legislative body and your nation, by joining it, accepts its laws in good faith.

In short, yes, you can shrug your shoulders, but if your nation does it, it's point-and-laugh time.

This only matters if you're involved in the roleplaying aspect (which I'm not, except in limited amounts in the WA forums). And by "Point-and-laugh," he means "be jealous and wish we thought of it first."

[The Rich Port]

We'd support this if the resolution only contained ABBA lyrics.

So what you're saying is... We should take a chance on it?