[PASSED] Habeas Corpus

[The Altani Federation]

The Halseyist Faction notes the prior piece of legislation, and fought and voted against that one as well. If the honourable ambassidor would care to examine the records, he will find a veritable tirade upon our behalf against the motion, and we shall issue as many as is required to get nations to force their own misconceptions of laws and rights upon us.

You know, there is an easier way to not have the WA "force its misconceptions of laws and rights", as you put it, upon your nation....your "honorable" delegation could just GTFO and not let the doors to the GA hit you in your fascist rears when you depart.

To the gentleman who insists that people just 'Have' rights, that is utter codswallop. We are but creatures in the world, the spider, the bee, nor the gelatenous cube, have no 'rights' when they were born, or summoned into existance by the throw of the dice. Rights are a human creation, and they belong with society. Government oversees society, and the Halseyist Faction government notes that it's citizens have no rights.

Then we note that the Halseyist Faction government is obviously a pathetic government, whose fear of what its people would do to said government if they had true freedom reeks like a miasma of toxic waste throughout this Assembly. Please tell me, then, why we should pay any regard to your ramblings. If you truly think that basic rights stem from governments, and not the people those governments represent, then your government is a fine example of why the WA needs to pass legislation like this in the first place.

Thusly, the contious attempts of this assembly to inconvience the lives of those members of the one True Church of Admiral Halsey, but enforcing incomptent and unessicarily legislation, designed only to inflict their view of an ideal world on everyone else, are neither desired, nor appreciated.

Um, enforcing legislation designed to bring about the international community that the WA, in the wisdom (or lack thereof) of its members, decides should exist, is kind of what this body does. Again, there is an easily available remedy to you if you choose not to embark on that adventure with us, sir.

This, Sir, is a step too far, and I continue to challenge anyone to come up with a reasonable sane, and inexpensive method of enforcing this legislation on any country, or individual.

Oh, the gnomes will take care of that, don't you worry. It's kind of what they do, too.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

[The Halseyist Faction]

Ah, and for the second time someone attempts to inflict upon our nation of the wisdom of, 'If you disagree with my view, please leave the assembly so I can get back to shoving sugar into my ego.'

The, World Assembly, is a model of... Democracy is it not? Rule by the majority? Every time a desision comes around, we all sit here and argue like the brainless schoolchildren of your country, and eventually more people agree than disagree, or vice versa. Yes?

It is not a case of, more people agree than disagree, and then everyone who was on the losing side gets thrown out the room by their hair. Free Speech, as distasteful as it is, still exists within this instituion, and I have just as much right to express it, as I have to allow you to continue to breath air that should be rationed elsewhere. If the only consturctive soultion to someone else's oppostion, or rather, if your arguement and postion are so weak that rather than debate, you would simply advise the other to flee before your impotent wrath and hide from your assembly, then perhaps you should be finding yourself a new postion. I hear your ruler employs individuals with well used throats, no?

And perhaps you might take to heart that in the real world*, which is not bubbledreamland. Not everyone immediately does what they should. That we create laws with the expectation that some will break them, and do so with a means to enforce those laws, and punish the violators of said laws. Ergo, if you do not have the means to enforce those laws, they are not worth the paper they are written on, and should not be called laws but 'Advice'. Meaning that the World Assembly would love for you to do things like this, and if you don't several of it's memebers will whine and pout, and inevitably forget the motion even passed.

Our government represents nothing less than the devine will of the Lord Admiral Halsey himself, and his presence, devine as it is, is what gives us cause and purpose. The number of souls born into our cause, or choosing to live under it, have no relevence. Nor does your pathetic need for freedom. We have no fear of our citizendry, because nothing can withstand his might, his genius, and his unparreled intellect, and nothing can stand before the might of our true cause, and the enforcement of his vision. It is not that we are 'afriad' of people. It is that we have all recongised the superiority of the Admiral's way of life, and surrender to him our own individuality, so that he might better guide us to new existance.

The fact that you, unlike an educated Halseyist child, can no see and appreciate his glory, speak well in public, or debate your way out a wet paperbag, is disheartening, and we hope nature, or a well paid individual, might silence your weak cries at the earlist oppertunity, to better pave the way for a new era.

(ooc note, The nationstates real world, obviously, not the real real world, since this is all IC

[The Altani Federation]

Ah, and for the second time someone attempts to inflict upon our nation of the wisdom of, 'If you disagree with my view, please leave the assembly so I can get back to shoving sugar into my ego.'

The, World Assembly, is a model of... Democracy is it not? Rule by the majority? Every time a desision comes around, we all sit here and argue like the brainless schoolchildren of your country, and eventually more people agree than disagree, or vice versa. Yes?

It is not a case of, more people agree than disagree, and then everyone who was on the losing side gets thrown out the room by their hair. Free Speech, as distasteful as it is, still exists within this instituion, and I have just as much right to express it, as I have to allow you to continue to breath air that should be rationed elsewhere.

Oh, you can express it all you like, ambassador. I was just hoping you'd realize that appeals for a body dedicated to improving the international community to recognize the "right" to oppress people and treat them as less than human would be just silly. I was also hoping you'd figure out that instead of expending the air you breathe on fruitless appeals for us to respect the black-boot-on-throat school of political thought, your nation could just leave and avoid all the nasty bother of having to respect peoples' rights. But hey, whatever floats your boat. You must live in one boring country if that's your idea of a good time.

If the only consturctive soultion to someone else's oppostion, or rather, if your arguement and postion are so weak that rather than debate, you would simply advise the other to flee before your impotent wrath and hide from your assembly, then perhaps you should be finding yourself a new postion. I hear your ruler employs individuals with well used throats, no?

Please point out to me how your argument that a body of nations such as this assembly should respect your desire to mistreat your people, well, just because you want to, is any more valid than my argument that there are certain rights people are endowed with that transcend your Great Leader's petty desire to play at being the big man.

And perhaps you might take to heart that in the real world*, which is not bubbledreamland. Not everyone immediately does what they should. That we create laws with the expectation that some will break them, and do so with a means to enforce those laws, and punish the violators of said laws. Ergo, if you do not have the means to enforce those laws, they are not worth the paper they are written on, and should not be called laws but 'Advice'. Meaning that the World Assembly would love for you to do things like this, and if you don't several of it's memebers will whine and pout, and inevitably forget the motion even passed.

If you're in the WA, and legislation is passed, compliance is mandatory and enforced. You can pretend all you like that it isn't, though, if it makes you feel better.

Our government represents nothing less than the devine will of the Lord Admiral Halsey himself, and his presence, devine as it is, is what gives us cause and purpose. The number of souls born into our cause, or choosing to live under it, have no relevence. Nor does your pathetic need for freedom. We have no fear of our citizendry, because nothing can withstand his might, his genius, and his unparreled intellect, and nothing can stand before the might of our true cause, and the enforcement of his vision. It is not that we are 'afriad' of people. It is that we have all recongised the superiority of the Admiral's way of life, and surrender to him our own individuality, so that he might better guide us to new existance.

The fact that you, unlike an educated Halseyist child, can no see and appreciate his glory, speak well in public, or debate your way out a wet paperbag, is disheartening, and we hope nature, or a well paid individual, might silence your weak cries at the earlist oppertunity, to better pave the way for a new era.

That was a cute remark about our President employing people with well-used throats. He does, actually, but that's a matter for another time. But you should know all about that, since your rambling about your "great" Admiral Dictator Guy #1 Supreme Leader amounts to a whole lot of crotch-mouth hockey. That must be how you got to be an ambassador, I suspect.

The real codswallop, Ambassador, is the idea that you should be allowed to mistreat your people just because some tinpot dictator and his slack-jawed cronies want to. You can rant all about how wonderful your leader is. You can babble about how wonderful your government is, that wants to deprive people of even a freedom as basic as not being yanked off the streets for no reason and imprisoned. You can insist that this Assembly, this community of nations, respect your "right" to treat your people as lower than dirt. But those of us born in true freedom will recognize your "right" as the nonsense that it is, will vote for resolutions such as these, and will be overjoyed to see them pass.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

[Gobbannium]

Furthermore, it holds this legislation in contempt, for the simple reason that it belives the WA will be in no way about to police or support this measure. Demanding the removal of biological weapons is one thing, and easily attended to by inspectors, but is the World Assembly so deluded as to think it can actually enforce international law upon every arrest of every citizen in every World Assembly nation?

The WA has no need to do any such thing. It is sufficient that international law is translated into national law, for then each nation's own legal system provides its own enforcement. We understand the gnomes are marvelously efficient at such translations, particularly when it comes to inscribing them in the law-books of the would-be recalcitrants.

As the representative of the Corporations of Miars, we greatly disapprove of this fine piece of paper. We find this a contradiction to our culture laws that allow my employers their power ov... I mean the government the power to govern respective each person. Besides everyone in our state is employed by one of our companies. And the companies themselves deliver Justice to rule breakers. Our Justice system fine and We will vote against this.

If the companies dispense Justice justly, then this proposal should give them nothing to fear. If they deliver it by whim and favour, or fear and oppression, then they should receive no sympathy from us as they sow the seeds of disorder and discontent.

[OOC: And it looks like there might be some overlap between #62 and this one... or is it just me?]

[OOC: I did worry about this to start with, but this is all about why and how long people can be detained, and #62 is all about the manner in which they're detained. It's awful, but it doesn't overlap.]

A second point we disagree with are the limits on hours to keep someone in custody."

We did ask repeatedly for discussion on these matters. We are disappointed that the respected ambassador of Noordeinde did not choose to speak up when the limits could be adjusted.

" We disagree on this point because some people are a real danger to themselves or society or have commited such a cruel crime, like murder or rape, or are being held on suspicioun of those crimes that we feel it's better for him/her and society to keep that person in custody during the investigation untill he or she is proven innocent or guilty."

We absolutely and utterly disagree. Recall here that we are speaking of someone whose possible guilt has not been demonstrated in any way. Acting upon suspicion and creating scapegoats is one of the surest ways to destroy a society.

"Last but not least we do still fully support Resolution 62# and feel that this Resolution is unneccesary.

This resolution does not overlap with Resolution #62, so we cannot imagine how the respected ambassador can draw such a conclusion. Indeed, the only conclusion we draw from resolution #62 is that it should be repealed and replaced with what the author intended, rather than what he wrote.

The Grand Puerto Rican Palti of Buffett and Colbert regrettably cannot support this noble intentioned piece of legislation. It is too broad of a subject to be covered in a resolution this... refined.

Might we ask Ambassador Jims to elaborate on these comments? What specifically is ill-covered? We confess to a certain confusion, as we thought the subject matter rather narrow.

Thusly, the contious attempts of this assembly to inconvience the lives of those members of the one True Church of Admiral Halsey, but enforcing incomptent and unessicarily legislation, designed only to inflict their view of an ideal world on everyone else, are neither desired, nor appreciated.

We cannot but continue to wonder why the members of the one True Church of Admiral Halsey continue to subject themselves to company they find so disagreeable. We are yet to hear them say a single positive word concerning the World Assembly, or indeed why the Assembly's insistence on the application of justice and right is such undesirable behaviour. Surely the respected ambassador does not intend us to conclude that his nation intends to act unjustly?

[Noordeinde]

Then charge them. Habeas Corpus has absolutely nothing to do with bail laws. What it means is that if you're holding someone in custody, they much be charged with an offence.

Oh, and on the topic of rights... We have rights. Every person has rights. Governments don't grant rights, they don't remove them, they certainly don't [/i]inflict[/i] them open people. Neither does the WA. What governments, and the WA, can do is recognise rights that already exist, or choose not to recognise those rights.
Rights come from people, not from governments. Despite what some governments like to think. The state is not me.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

OOC: Yep, I definitely remember these debates from the UN version. Always good to see the same old arguments being trotted out again.

" First of all I agree on the point that the state is not me or any other person. But second a State does actualy decide how much freedom it's citizens are being given. (ooc: think of North Korea, China, Russia partially etc... unfortunetaly they all have limits on freedom for their citizens) Otherwise it would be complete Anarchy."

"Then I have another example, someone commits a robbery and flees from the scene, the only thing the police has is a description of the suspect. In the area the police finds lets's say 4 people who match the description. Yes they could immediatley charge them with suspicion of robbery, and waste more time and money which creates more bureaucracy."

"It would be better in our case to bring them in the local precinct, have a line-up as soon as the victim will make-up an official complaint. And afther the line-up charge the one who commited this offense and release the other ones and thank them for their coorporation."

"What this proposal does is pressuring the Legal and Law Enforcement Branch and create more bureaucracy!! Something Noordeinde opposes because it would also mean that we have to increase taxes for our citizens"

Ambassador Gallagher said and once again he sat down back in his chair.

[Philimbesi]

I rise today to express the United States of Philimbesi's support for this measure as this resolution closely mirrors our own Rights Of The Accused Act and the differences between the two are minuscule at best.

We congratulate the fine ambassador and pledge our support to this debate and endeavor.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador - USP.

[Enn]

" First of all I agree on the point that the state is not me or any other person. But second a State does actualy decide how much freedom it's citizens are being given. (ooc: think of North Korea, China, Russia partially etc... unfortunetaly they all have limits on freedom for their citizens) Otherwise it would be complete Anarchy."

"Then I have another example, someone commits a robbery and flees from the scene, the only thing the police has is a description of the suspect. In the area the police finds lets's say 4 people who match the description. Yes they could immediatley charge them with suspicion of robbery, and waste more time and money which creates more bureaucracy."

"It would be better in our case to bring them in the local precinct, have a line-up as soon as the victim will make-up an official complaint. And afther the line-up charge the one who commited this offense and release the other ones and thank them for their coorporation."

"What this proposal does is pressuring the Legal and Law Enforcement Branch and create more bureaucracy!! Something Noordeinde opposes because it would also mean that we have to increase taxes for our citizens"

Ambassador Gallagher said and once again he sat down back in his chair.

I draw Ambassador Gallagher's attention to Article 1 of the proposed resolution.

1) That no person may be held against their will without being charged with or officially suspected of a criminal offence for more than two hours in any one week without full legal authorisation for such detention. Such authorisation may extend the period of detention to at most twenty four hours in any one week.

How much time does your police service require for a line-up? Would it really require more than two hours? Or twenty-four with a court order? If this is insufficient for the police of Noordeinde, then I suggest that the fault lies with Noordiende, not this resolution.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Qumkent]

Ah, and for the second time someone attempts to inflict upon our nation of the wisdom of, 'If you disagree with my view, please leave the assembly so I can get back to shoving sugar into my ego.'

Your Excellency talks a lot about having things inflicted upon them, and indeed upon the nation they represent. This seems a deeply unhealthy relationship to continue to be in does it not ? Surely the Halseyist Faction owes its people the diginity of carrying out whatever mandate it feels it has been given to govern in the way it sees fit. If continued membership of the WA undermines your Excellency's government's ability to govern in the fashion it sees fit then continued membership of the WA must represent a very grave danger to its continued mandate to govern at all, no ?

The, World Assembly, is a model of... Democracy is it not? Rule by the majority? Every time a desision comes around, we all sit here and argue like the brainless schoolchildren of your country, and eventually more people agree than disagree, or vice versa. Yes?

The WA is not a model of democracy, it is a model of majoratism. The two are not the same. Democracy is not rule by majority.

I hear your ruler employs individuals with well used throats, no?

If your Excellency is making lewd suggestions regarding government officials in the Altani Federation we suggest your Excellency apologise forthwith. In any case the Altani Federation has moved beyond the primitivism of needing a "Ruler" so the suggestion is doubly erronious.

And perhaps you might take to heart that in the real world*, which is not bubbledreamland. Not everyone immediately does what they should. That we create laws with the expectation that some will break them, and do so with a means to enforce those laws, and punish the violators of said laws. Ergo, if you do not have the means to enforce those laws, they are not worth the paper they are written on, and should not be called laws but 'Advice'. Meaning that the World Assembly would love for you to do things like this, and if you don't several of it's memebers will whine and pout, and inevitably forget the motion even passed.

The WA has every means of enforcement of its laws, indeed compliance is automatic and not negotiable. If your Excellency's government can find a cunning method of legally obviating the provisions of any statute then they should by all means use it, if they must. Once again this raises the question of why any government would waste its time being a member of an organisation the laws of which it completely vitiates at any opportunity, surely this is a futile excercise no ?

Our government represents nothing less than the devine will of the Lord Admiral Halsey himself, and his presence, devine as it is, is what gives us cause and purpose. The number of souls born into our cause, or choosing to live under it, have no relevence. Nor does your pathetic need for freedom. We have no fear of our citizendry, because nothing can withstand his might, his genius, and his unparreled intellect, and nothing can stand before the might of our true cause, and the enforcement of his vision. It is not that we are 'afriad' of people. It is that we have all recongised the superiority of the Admiral's way of life, and surrender to him our own individuality, so that he might better guide us to new existance.

This is a totally compelling argument for no longer remaining a member state of the WA. If the provisions of a statute concerned with Habeus Corpus may interfere in the people of The Halseyist Faction's ability to transcend ordinary existence then it would seem axiomatic that The Halseyist Faction must remove itself from the WA. like

The fact that you, unlike an educated Halseyist child, can no see and appreciate his glory, speak well in public, or debate your way out a wet paperbag, is disheartening, and we hope nature, or a well paid individual, might silence your weak cries at the earlist oppertunity, to better pave the way for a new era.

This is nonesense.

Now does your Excellency have anything pertinant to add to the debate regarding this statute ? Or are we simply to be repeatedly exposed to garbled and essentially meaningless expositions regarding the details of the burning love your Excellency clearly holds for your nation's petty overlord ?

Yours,

[Noordeinde]

How much time does your police service require for a line-up? Would it really require more than two hours? Or twenty-four with a court order? If this is insufficient for the police of Noordeinde, then I suggest that the fault lies with Noordiende, not this resolution.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

" Mister Ambassador, I think it is just childish to say that the problem lies within the Noordeindian Law Enforcement and Legal Branch without knowing the details of it."

"The problem still lies within this proposal. The Law Enforcement Agencies and the Legal Branch are being pressured to investigate someones involvement in a crime or offense within two hours because of the proposed guidelines, while a good Police Force, like the one in Noordeinde, need at least 24 to 36 hours to investigate such a thing without any hurry and with great precision instead of two hours."

"I'm very sure that Police Officers will make mistakes, bad decisions etc... Because they are being pressured by the World Assembly to act following these ridiculous guideline. We want to investigate a case individually and take as many time to investigate and keep someone in custody as long as neccesary (24 to 36 hours) instead of following a General Guideline of two hours which will make their work impossible!

[Philimbesi]

My esteemed colleague you may take any amount of time you need to do your investigation prior to arresting the individual. At such point you have two hours to charge them with the crime. I fail to see the bureaucracy that the ambassador is speaking of.

[Bettia]

"I'm very sure that Police Officers will make mistakes, bad decisions etc... Because they are being pressured by the World Assembly to act following these ridiculous guideline. We want to investigate a case individually and take as many time to investigate and keep someone in custody as long as neccesary (24 to 36 hours) instead of following a General Guideline of two hours which will make their work impossible!

Yes, my colleague makes a good point - in some cases, the two-hour time limit could be too short.

As a hypothetical example, a riot is in progress, and someone is arrested on the scene and brought into the local police station. However, the riot is still ongoing and most of the officers are still indisposed two hours later, with no opportunity for questioning or for the arresting officer to give an immediate account. Do we just charge this person or make him / her an official suspect automatically and pray they're not an innocent local who was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or do we just release them after the two hours are up and hope they're not guilty after all?

[Philimbesi]

However, the riot is still ongoing and most of the officers are still indisposed two hours later, with no opportunity for questioning or for the arresting officer to give an immediate account.

Someone would be bringing the individual in and in most cases and certainly in the case of civil unrest the charge would not be in question. They would be charged at the time of the arrest by the officer "I'm placing you under arrest for...." that's the charge, once the individual is brought in the arresting officer needs only to be there to sign the complaint and as the charge has been stated they would have 24 hours to sign the formal complaint.

[Noordeinde]

"Esteemeded Colleague, that might be the procedure in your country, but it might be very different in another country, and that's also a problem with this proposal, each country has it's own procedures of an arrest and/or in it's court of law and now someone tries to reform it to one system in all WA countries, which just doesn't work for some countries, including Noordeinde, though we agree on multiple points of the proposal, like the one where you immediatley inform someone about why he or she is taken into custody by the Police."

" And as our colleage Ambassador from Bettia already mentioned as well, in times of an emergency this proposal will work against us because officers are in their offices charging someone and writing reports instead of being on the scene assisting their brothers/sisters in blue. And I rather see those officers on the scene instead of being in their officers writing files, because this proposal says they have to within two hours."

"And as I already mentioned Noordeinde has no problem with the WA interfering with it's Justice system, like Resolution 62#, which we fully support, but this proposed resolution goes to far."

[Gobbannium]

"Esteemeded Colleague, that might be the procedure in your country, but it might be very different in another country, and that's also a problem with this proposal, each country has it's own procedures of an arrest and/or in it's court of law and now someone tries to reform it to one system in all WA countries, which just doesn't work for some countries, including Noordeinde, though we agree on multiple points of the proposal, like the one where you immediatley inform someone about why he or she is taken into custody by the Police."

If the respected ambassador would pause for breath for a moment, he might observe that his argument threatens to collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. He wishes for a person to be informed as to why they have been taken into custody, but does not seem to mind if that reason is "Because the officer concerned felt like it."

Countries who choose to detain citizens on less than rumour and only then begin an investigation, as the respected ambassador opines that they should, are precisely our target with this resolution. The injustice of such a situation should be manifestly obvious, and we are at a loss to understand how the ambassador can think otherwise.

Yes, my colleague makes a good point - in some cases, the two-hour time limit could be too short.

Ambassadors have had over a month to make representations on time intervals in just this most recent incarnation of the drafting process. Excuse us for being unimpressed with the emergence of such arguments well past the eleventh hour.

As a hypothetical example, a riot is in progress, and someone is arrested on the scene and brought into the local police station. However, the riot is still ongoing and most of the officers are still indisposed two hours later, with no opportunity for questioning or for the arresting officer to give an immediate account. Do we just charge this person or make him / her an official suspect automatically and pray they're not an innocent local who was unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or do we just release them after the two hours are up and hope they're not guilty after all?

Or do you hold them on suspicion of causing a riot for up to two working days, during which time not even our love of bureaucracy is likely to prevent processing?

Or do you charge them with affray, or any of the variety of offences they were almost certainly committing in order to have been arrested in the first place?

We can carry on for some time in the same vein; there is no shortage of legal options remaining to officers of the law under these circumstances.

[Noordeinde]

If the respected ambassador would pause for breath for a moment, he might observe that his argument threatens to collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. He wishes for a person to be informed as to why they have been taken into custody, but does not seem to mind if that reason is "Because the officer concerned felt like it."

Countries who choose to detain citizens on less than rumour and only then begin an investigation, as the respected ambassador opines that they should, are precisely our target with this resolution. The injustice of such a situation should be manifestly obvious, and we are at a loss to understand how the ambassador can think otherwise.

"Mister Ambassador, indeed our Law Enforcement Agents do tell you why you are being taken into custody on the moment of arrest, but on the moment someone is brought into the local precinct someone from the Local DA's Office (District Atterney) will take over the case and will investigate the case but also if this was a legal arrest or not, and this takes more than two hours!"

" It is to short because the DA has to talk with the Officer and Suspect, has to investigate the case and has to make a report and decide if the District Atterney's office will file charges or not. Further in Noordeinde has a suspect the right to have a lawyer present when being questioned and it takes time before a lawyer is present at the Police Precinct.

"So our biggest problem is still the guidlines about how long we may keep someone in custody untill official charges are being pressed against the suspect by the District Atterney. And as already said before, the District Atterney's Office requires at least 24 to 36 hours to investigate if the arrest was legal , if a crime and/or offense has been commited and if charges will be pressed. So once again two hours is way to short.

"And as my esteemed colleague Ambassador from Bettia and I already mentioned, this proposal will work against us in urgent and emergency cases!

[Gobbannium]

"Mister Ambassador, indeed our Law Enforcement Agents do tell you why you are being taken into custody on the moment of arrest, but on the moment someone is brought into the local precinct someone from the Local DA's Office (District Atterney) will take over the case and will investigate the case but also if this was a legal arrest or not, and this takes more than two hours!"

How fortunate, then, that they have two whole days at least, since they are at that point detaining the person concerned on suspicion of a crime. Given your later assertion of the speed of your District Atterneys, this is more than adequate. Besides, one would really hope that a case had been investigated before an arrest was made, rather than arresting first and then deciding whether or not the person can be prosecuted.

Respected ambassador, we suggest that a closer study of the different categories of detention and the different limits placed upon them might relieve your hysteria.

[Noordeinde]

"Well now I have heared this from you in person as well, Mister Ambassador, and reviewing the Proposal I will inform my Government to withdraw our vote against and vote for, I guess looking at how countries have voted on the moment we will have to change some national laws and guidelines for arresting and detaining a suspect but I sincerely hope that this resolution will work, and otherwise it will be repealed, ofcourse!"

"And one last point, to answer on one of your remarks; under normal circumstances our law Enforcement branch does investigate the case before they arrest someone, but sometimes in a case of hurry or an emergency an arrest has to be made, and in such a case we will investigate that persons involvement aftherwards. Thank you Mister Chairman, that was all."

[Tybra]

We express ourselves against this proposal due to various reasons.

For starters, these times this proposal mandates are by far ludicrous. There's absolutely no foundation for them whatsoever, it's like someone decided to roll a dice and add a few numbers to make it look nicer. There's no scientific proof nor even experimental proof these times are even viable. It clearly does not take into account those nations whom cannot due to various reasons comply with these times.

For example, a nation has a broad security procedure to protect it citizens from corrupted police powers, thus this procedure takes more then 36 hours before a formal charge can be compiled. However:

3) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence

Does this mean that a nation must release a suspect directly after 48 hours even though it takes an average 36 hours? And who will control these issues, you hardly expect this to be reviewed by WA inspectors by an uncooperative government.

Furthermore this Proposal is with more holes then Tybran Cheese. Take for example the following piece:

4) That a person so charged must be informed of the formal charge immediately.

So would this mean a person can even be unconscious and what if the person is drunk or on drugs or even manically depressive or in a coma? It lacks any detail and we're more concerned this will be used in nations not to protect the right of individuals but rather to exploit this proposal for such rights.

[Gobbannium]

We express ourselves against this proposal due to various reasons.

For starters, these times this proposal mandates are by far ludicrous. There's absolutely no foundation for them whatsoever, it's like someone decided to roll a dice and add a few numbers to make it look nicer. There's no scientific proof nor even experimental proof these times are even viable.

A few centuries of precedent would disagree with you, respected ambassador.

It clearly does not take into account those nations whom cannot due to various reasons comply with these times.

We are yet to meet an example of a nation which cannot. We have met nations which believe they cannot, incorrectly, and nations which do not, but should.

For example, a nation has a broad security procedure to protect it citizens from corrupted police powers, thus this procedure takes more then 36 hours before a formal charge can be compiled. However:

3) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence

Does this mean that a nation must release a suspect directly after 48 hours even though it takes an average 36 hours? And who will control these issues, you hardly expect this to be reviewed by WA inspectors by an uncooperative government.

The clause the respected ambassador quotes is for holding on suspicion. Being held on charges is another matter entirely, one on which this proposal is intentionally silent as the resolution "Fairness in Criminal Trials" makes provision for it instead. We thank the ambassador for another example in which 48 hours is an entirely adequate period, and observe that nothing in the procedure he outlined required that the accused be in detention while the formal charge was being compiled, rendering the question somewhat moot anyway.

We have decided not to engage upon yet another discussion of compliance. Suffice it to say that the question arises with monotonous regularity at these debates, and has yet to prove a problem in reality. There are far greater problems associated with loose wording that would allow creative interpretations of the letter of resolutions than ever occur through obstreperousness.

(OOC: in other words, compliance is mandatory. That's all.)

Furthermore this Proposal is with more holes then Tybran Cheese. Take for example the following piece:

4) That a person so charged must be informed of the formal charge immediately.

So would this mean a person can even be unconscious and what if the person is drunk or on drugs or even manically depressive or in a coma? It lacks any detail and we're more concerned this will be used in nations not to protect the right of individuals but rather to exploit this proposal for such rights.

This is a much more reasonable point, though we feel its singularity does not merit the metaphor used. Had this point been raise during the past month of drafting -- or indeed any time in the last half year except during the period of our absence, since it is that long since the subject was first mooted -- we would have been glad to expand and qualify the clause to eliminate any possibility of abuse. That not being the case, we must limit ourselves to considering whether the issue is a "showstopper" or not.

This is definitely a problem we would rather have avoided. That said, the clause does provide ammunition for any competent legal representative to argue that speaking at an unconscious man does not constitute informing him, rendering it difficult to use as a way of systematically removing individuals' rights. The reverse case, that of an individual rendering themselves insensate so that they cannot be informed, can also be defeated with a small amount of patience. Overall, in our opinion, the problems that our over-specificity raises can be defeated without great effort, leading us to still recommend ambassadors to support this resolution.

[Goobergunchia]

Goobergunchia votes in favor for reasons more eloquently stated by other ambassadors.

Susan Zafkoro
Legislative Assistant
Goobergunchian UN Embassy

[New Abal]

I, King Aoirann, The elected King of the Kingdom of Abal pledge my support for this bill on one stipulation. That if a person must be held past the 48 hours limit due to lack of an official they are entitled to access to proper food, drink, rest, and some entertainment.

[Golgoglot]

I, King Aoirann, The elected King of the Kingdom of Abal pledge my support for this bill on one stipulation. That if a person must be held past the 48 hours limit due to lack of an official they are entitled to access to proper food, drink, rest, and some entertainment.

[OOC: It's too late for stipulations. You either take it or leave it at this point.]

[Gobbannium]

I, King Aoirann, The elected King of the Kingdom of Abal pledge my support for this bill on one stipulation. That if a person must be held past the 48 hours limit due to lack of an official they are entitled to access to proper food, drink, rest, and some entertainment.

While we regret it is too late to include such stipulations at this point, we would observe that this matter is covered by resolution #62, "For the Detained and Convicted". While ineptly drafted, it does require that detainees shall be fed at least two adequate meals each day.

[Beeflandia (Ancient)]

AWARE of the need to balance the requirements of legal systems with the rights of the individual,

Whose rights? The individual who was violated, or the one who did the violating? Far too much consideration is given to criminals under this proposal.

3) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence.

Our police forces are already bogged down in attempting to investigate crimes. Are we now placing a time limit on them? They will be unable to investigate all offenses. Compromises will have to be made. Shortcuts will need to be taken. The overall quality of investigations will suffer. Do we really want the guilty walking free because of "technicalities" and "loop-holes"?

Please, in the name of true security and true civil order, vote down this legislation. Leave our own courts and police to decide these limitations on a case by case basis. This is the only way the law can be enforced fairly and justly.

[Philimbesi]

Whose rights? The individual who was violated, or the one who did the violating? Far too much consideration is given to criminals under this proposal.

Surely my esteemed colleague is able to tell the difference between the accused and the convicted? We would also hope that in the great nation of Beeflandia individuals that are accused of a crime are considered innocent of that crime until proven guilty? This act is to grant those citizens rights and to keep them from being left to languish in prison without benefit of charge or trial.

Our police forces are already bogged down in attempting to investigate crimes. Are we now placing a time limit on them?

No it places a time limit on the amount of time you can hold someone without charging them. Your investigations can take as long as they need to be solid. Further this does not say that the charges levied can be dismissed prior to court actions, so if you do charge someone and then further investigation proves that they are wrongfully charged the arresting officer or the court can dismiss those charges. Again this just keeps nations from arresting someone, for no reason, and holding them without benefit of charge or trial.