[PASSED] Habeas Corpus

[Quelesh]

If GAR190 is successfully repealed, then there will be no international law prohibiting, for example, indefinite pre-charge detention. In the absence of such a WA resolution, and if the member state's domestic law allowed for such indefinite pre-charge detention, then the impartial arbiter would find such detention legal (because it is), and someone being detained indefinitely without charge would receive no relief from this proposal.

Scaremongering. You're attempting to sell to this Assembly the notion that if your resolution is repealed then innocent people will be sent to their ruination. Please keep such antics in the appropriate debate; this debate is not that place.

It is not necessary for my resolution to be on the books, so long as there is some resolution that effectively prevents indefinite detention. Your proposal would not do this.

This proposal, as currently written, would prevent this assembly from prohibiting indefinite detention without charge, meaning that the legality of such indefinite detention would be up to member states.

This proposal bans arbitrary detention. If someone is kept detained with no charge for a long period of time, then one can logically conclude there is no charge with which to accuse them of and therefore the detention is arbitrary. Which this proposal bans. As I said.

You're arguing that indefinite detention is, by logical necessity, arbitrary? That's not the case. It's quite possible for detention to be indefinite but not arbitrary. If, for example, someone is accused of threatening to assassinate a political leader, a member state could lock her up indefinitely without formally charging her with any crime, because the government thinks she's a danger to the political leader, and such detention, while indefinite and unjust, would not be arbitrary, because it has a reason. This proposal as written would block future WA action to prohibit such indefinite detention without charge.

Requests can be refused. If I ask you to wash my hair for me, you can tell me to go commit a sexual act on myself. You don't have to actually do what I requested that you do. In order for this clause to be binding, REQUESTS would need to be changed to REQUIRES or something similar.

And even if it were so changed, member states would still be able to set extremely long time limits on pre-charge detention, far outside what would rightly be considered just. A habeas corpus proposal should either set reasonable limits on detention itself, or should not address that issue at all and merely provide for the right to be heard in court and to be released if the detention is found to be unlawful.

I note you ignore how I pointed out it was synonymous with demands. The Ambassador needs a legal attaché in her delegation. In legalese, or in the writing of official documents (which a WA resolution is, by the by), "requests" or "asks" is the same as "demands".

I've already addressed this issue of indefinite detention before being charged. Bringing it up twice in once reply has no affect, Ambassador, other than to point out you may be slightly forgetful. Nevertheless, I'll consider including the word "reasonable" in that clause.

The word "request" has more than one possible definition, and you are asserting that it must be interpreted as meaning only one of those definitions, without saying so in your proposal. If you meant "demands" instead of "requests," then you would have said "demands" in the proposal. Change REQUESTS to DEMANDS if you mean for it to be a demand.

Regardless, whether it is or is not non-binding does not affect my support for this proposal. I oppose strongly this proposal so long as the clause is present at all, because, whether binding or not, it acts as a blocker preventing this Assembly from passing meaningful protections.

Remove the clause in question entirely, and add a requirement that member states actually release individuals whose detentions are found to be unlawful, and I could then support this proposal if it comes to vote.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Philimbesi]

You're arguing that indefinite detention is, by logical necessity, arbitrary? That's not the case. It's quite possible for detention to be indefinite but not arbitrary. If, for example, someone is accused of threatening to assassinate a political leader, a member state could lock her up indefinitely without formally charging her with any crime, because the government thinks she's a danger to the political leader, and such detention, while indefinite and unjust, would not be arbitrary, because it has a reason. This proposal as written would block future WA action to prohibit such indefinite detention without charge.

Which flys almost directly into the face of reasonable nation theory.

I applaud the author for trusting the nations of this body to be reasonable, and actually able to come up with a decision on their own. It shows a lot of .... moral courage....

~Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.

[Sanctaria]

Scaremongering. You're attempting to sell to this Assembly the notion that if your resolution is repealed then innocent people will be sent to their ruination. Please keep such antics in the appropriate debate; this debate is not that place.

It is not necessary for my resolution to be on the books, so long as there is some resolution that effectively prevents indefinite detention. Your proposal would not do this.

This proposal bans arbitrary detention. If someone is kept detained with no charge for a long period of time, then one can logically conclude there is no charge with which to accuse them of and therefore the detention is arbitrary. Which this proposal bans. As I said.

You're arguing that indefinite detention is, by logical necessity, arbitrary? That's not the case. It's quite possible for detention to be indefinite but not arbitrary. If, for example, someone is accused of threatening to assassinate a political leader, a member state could lock her up indefinitely without formally charging her with any crime, because the government thinks she's a danger to the political leader, and such detention, while indefinite and unjust, would not be arbitrary, because it has a reason. This proposal as written would block future WA action to prohibit such indefinite detention without charge.

I'm taking both of these together because really I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the same argument in two different places if not to just make it appear that your argument is much longer than it actually is.

There is a reason behind everything one does. Even arbitrary detentions have reasons behind them. And no, I'm not arguing that "indefinite detention is, by logical necessity, arbitrary", because I said indefinite detention without charge is, logically, arbitrary. If you're going to trying and apply falsities to my logic, at least try and quote me properly.

I note you ignore how I pointed out it was synonymous with demands. The Ambassador needs a legal attaché in her delegation. In legalese, or in the writing of official documents (which a WA resolution is, by the by), "requests" or "asks" is the same as "demands".

I've already addressed this issue of indefinite detention before being charged. Bringing it up twice in once reply has no affect, Ambassador, other than to point out you may be slightly forgetful. Nevertheless, I'll consider including the word "reasonable" in that clause.

The word "request" has more than one possible definition, and you are asserting that it must be interpreted as meaning only one of those definitions, without saying so in your proposal. If you meant "demands" instead of "requests," then you would have said "demands" in the proposal. Change REQUESTS to DEMANDS if you mean for it to be a demand.

Regardless, whether it is or is not non-binding does not affect my support for this proposal. I oppose strongly this proposal so long as the clause is present at all, because, whether binding or not, it acts as a blocker preventing this Assembly from passing meaningful protections.

Remove the clause in question entirely, and add a requirement that member states actually release individuals whose detentions are found to be unlawful, and I could then support this proposal if it comes to vote.

I am not adding a clause. Because when detention is found to be illegal, the person is released, I don't think I need to spell it out for the World Assembly. Just because you are unable to add 1+1 and get 2, it doesn't mean all other Governments are as deluded.

On a similar note, I'm pretty sure there was a ruling by the Secretariat some time back where they said that when a resolution confers a right, it can be assumed, under the reasonable nation theory, that the nation allows its citizens to avail of that right in its entirety. That applies here, Ambassador.

Further, no. I use "requests" because it is a word and it means exactly what I intend it to mean. If it's being used in a legal document, its legal definition is, by very obvious logic, in force; is the Ambassador denying that this is a legal document? If so, delusion is not the word for it.

[Auralia]

It is not necessary for my resolution to be on the books, so long as there is some resolution that effectively prevents indefinite detention. Your proposal would not do this.

You're arguing that indefinite detention is, by logical necessity, arbitrary? That's not the case. It's quite possible for detention to be indefinite but not arbitrary. If, for example, someone is accused of threatening to assassinate a political leader, a member state could lock her up indefinitely without formally charging her with any crime, because the government thinks she's a danger to the political leader, and such detention, while indefinite and unjust, would not be arbitrary, because it has a reason. This proposal as written would block future WA action to prohibit such indefinite detention without charge.

I'm taking both of these together because really I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the same argument in two different places if not to just make it appear that your argument is much longer than it actually is.

There is a reason behind everything one does. Even arbitrary detentions have reasons behind them. And no, I'm not arguing that "indefinite detention is, by logical necessity, arbitrary", because I said indefinite detention without charge is, logically, arbitrary. If you're going to trying and apply falsities to my logic, at least try and quote me properly.

Perhaps the use of a different word (or phrase) would eliminate this confusion? Perhaps a mandate that there be some statutory justification for the detention?

The word "request" has more than one possible definition, and you are asserting that it must be interpreted as meaning only one of those definitions, without saying so in your proposal. If you meant "demands" instead of "requests," then you would have said "demands" in the proposal. Change REQUESTS to DEMANDS if you mean for it to be a demand.

Regardless, whether it is or is not non-binding does not affect my support for this proposal. I oppose strongly this proposal so long as the clause is present at all, because, whether binding or not, it acts as a blocker preventing this Assembly from passing meaningful protections.

Remove the clause in question entirely, and add a requirement that member states actually release individuals whose detentions are found to be unlawful, and I could then support this proposal if it comes to vote.

I am not adding a clause. Because when detention is found to be illegal, the person is released, I don't think I need to spell it out for the World Assembly. Just because you are unable to add 1+1 and get 2, it doesn't mean all other Governments are as deluded.

On a similar note, I'm pretty sure there was a ruling by the Secretariat some time back where they said that when a resolution confers a right, it can be assumed, under the reasonable nation theory, that the nation allows its citizens to avail of that right in its entirety. That applies here, Ambassador.

Further, no. I use "requests" because it is a word and it means exactly what I intend it to mean. If it's being used in a legal document, its legal definition is, by very obvious logic, in force; is the Ambassador denying that this is a legal document? If so, delusion is not the word for it.

What harm would there be in adding a clause mandating that nations release individuals detained unlawfully? What harm would there be in replacing the word "requests" with "demands" or "mandates"? It would eliminate this confusion without damaging your proposal in any way.

[Sanctaria]

Perhaps the use of a different word (or phrase) would eliminate this confusion? Perhaps a mandate that there be some statutory justification for the detention?

...That's implicit. What do you think the impartial arbiter does, toss a die in the air?

I wrote this using the most simple of terminology. If Ambassadors are having a hard time understanding this is no longer my problem.

What harm would there be in adding a clause mandating that nations release individuals detained unlawfully? What harm would there be in replacing the word "requests" with "demands" or "mandates"? It would eliminate this confusion without damaging your proposal in any way.

I chose my words for their meaning and their stylistic purposes. I already used "mandates" and "demands", I don't want to use them again.

Why would I have to add a clause that's entirely unnecessary? You don't add clauses just because they don't do any harm.

[Sanctaria]

After consulting with my thoughts, I felt it best to clarify some issues that have arisen.

I've changed the now controversial "time-limits clause" but I may further revise it to this:

STIPULATES that nations shall employ reasonable time-limits on detentions so as to etc. etc.

---

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Habeas Corpus
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

Description: The General Assembly,

BELIEVING that being detained unlawfully is a serious affront to an individual's liberty and right to freedom,

CONCERNED that some nations may not have the pathway of habeas corpus to rectify such illegal detentions,

CONVINCED that habeas corpus is a legal remedy that must be available to those who are detained,

Hereby

MANDATES that any individual detained by the state, or a state actor, shall have the right to appeal the legality of that detention before an impartial judicial body, or its equivalent, by oneself or through counsel;

DEMANDS that detention shall neither be arbitrary nor shall continue if deemed illegal;

REQUIRES that nations employ the usage of reasonable time limits on detention so as to avoid the unnecessary breach of individuals' liberty and right to freedom.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

This act is pro terrorism and would not be welcomed in my nation.

[Sanctaria]

This act is pro terrorism and would not be welcomed in my nation.

Pro-terrorism? Would the eh, esteemed, Ambassador care to expand?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

This act is pro terrorism and would not be welcomed in my nation.

Pro-terrorism? Would the eh, esteemed, Ambassador care to expand?

For starters allowing detained terrorists or potential terrorists to appeal on it, second limiting the time a potential or stopped criminal can be detained.

[Sanctaria]

Pro-terrorism? Would the eh, esteemed, Ambassador care to expand?

Placeholder.

...Right.

Try and actually formulate an opinion before you enter a debate. You'll find that you're more welcomed.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Placeholder.

...Right.

Try and actually formulate an opinion before you enter a debate. You'll find that you're more welcomed.

Posted.

[Sanctaria]

Pro-terrorism? Would the eh, esteemed, Ambassador care to expand?

For starters allowing detained terrorists or potential terrorists to appeal on it, second limiting the time a potential or stopped criminal can be detained.

Appeal does not equal release.

Secondly, this proposal does not limit the time one can be detained, your nation must limit the time and it must be reasonable or proportional to one's (accused) crimes.

Anything further?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

For starters allowing detained terrorists or potential terrorists to appeal on it, second limiting the time a potential or stopped criminal can be detained.

Appeal does not equal release.

Secondly, this proposal does not limit the time one can be detained, your nation must limit the time and it must be reasonable or proportional to one's (accused) crimes.

Anything further?

Well the fact that it brings up civil rights for people accused of crimes, if sombody is suspected of being a potential criminal or a criminal than why do they deserve civil rights? Its the treatment of inmates act all over again in a different form.

[Sanctaria]

Appeal does not equal release.

Secondly, this proposal does not limit the time one can be detained, your nation must limit the time and it must be reasonable or proportional to one's (accused) crimes.

Anything further?

Well the fact that it brings up civil rights for people accused of crimes, if sombody is suspected of being a potential criminal or a criminal than why do they deserve civil rights? Its the treatment of inmates act all over again in a different form.

Oh. You're one of those nations.

Look, darling, people have rights. Even if they do something bad, they should have some semblance of rights. Why, I hear your quaint little voice struggling to contain? Because if we strip bad people of their rights, are we any better than them? And if we're no better than them, my little buttercup, we're not fit to judge them!

It's about moral high-ground and being merciful and just really silly stuff you probably don't really care about. But I'm here to answer questions and answer questions I shall, my little dove.

[Auralia]

Appeal does not equal release.

Secondly, this proposal does not limit the time one can be detained, your nation must limit the time and it must be reasonable or proportional to one's (accused) crimes.

Anything further?

Well the fact that it brings up civil rights for people accused of crimes, if sombody is suspected of being a potential criminal or a criminal than why do they deserve civil rights? Its the treatment of inmates act all over again in a different form.

What if they're not criminals?

[Damanucus]

I'm going to put this out to the Queleshi delegation in regards to this resolution: if the detention seems too long, then the prisoner can invoke Habeas Corpus and appeal their detention, which can, in turn, either bring forward the trial or force the prosecutory forces to release the prisoner, as given in the resolution. Is there anything in that which the ambassador wishes to debate?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Philimbesi]

I'm going to put this out to the Queleshi delegation in regards to this resolution: if the detention seems too long, then the prisoner can invoke Habeas Corpus and appeal their detention, which can, in turn, either bring forward the trial or force the prosecutory forces to release the prisoner, as given in the resolution. Is there anything in that which the ambassador wishes to debate?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

A reasonable solution, which in turn leads me to believe the Queleshi delegation will hate it with every fiber of their being.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.

[Ainocra]

Marshal Enta blows a cloud of cigar smoke out into the chamber but says nothing.

[Merfurian]

We place it on record that we concur with the effort undertaken by the Sanctarian ambassador. We will monitor this Resolution through our Mobile and Desk Monitoring systems, and this shall serve as the authoritative Resolution of record with regards to habeas corpus. As far as we are concerned, all other resolutions wherein we have expressed an interest and are thus actively monitoring are now superseded, and rendered null and void.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

[Quelesh]

BELIEVING that being detained unlawfully is a serious affront to an individual's liberty and right to freedom,

CONCERNED that some nations may not have the pathway of habeas corpus to rectify such illegal detentions,

CONVINCED that habeas corpus is a legal remedy that must be available to those who are detained,

Hereby

MANDATES that any individual detained by the state, or a state actor, shall have the right to appeal the legality of that detention before an impartial judicial body, or its equivalent, by oneself or through counsel;

DEMANDS that detention shall neither be arbitrary nor shall continue if deemed illegal;

REQUIRES that nations employ the usage of reasonable time limits on detention so as to avoid the unnecessary breach of individuals' liberty and right to freedom.

I am glad that the ambiguities that were previously pointed out have been addressed. The only issue that remains is the very presence of the time limits clause, which still acts as a blocker, though it is not quite as disagreeable as before.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Auralia]

BELIEVING that being detained unlawfully is a serious affront to an individual's liberty and right to freedom,

CONCERNED that some nations may not have the pathway of habeas corpus to rectify such illegal detentions,

CONVINCED that habeas corpus is a legal remedy that must be available to those who are detained,

Hereby

MANDATES that any individual detained by the state, or a state actor, shall have the right to appeal the legality of that detention before an impartial judicial body, or its equivalent, by oneself or through counsel;

DEMANDS that detention shall neither be arbitrary nor shall continue if deemed illegal;

REQUIRES that nations employ the usage of reasonable time limits on detention so as to avoid the unnecessary breach of individuals' liberty and right to freedom.

I am glad that the ambiguities that were previously pointed out have been addressed. The only issue that remains is the very presence of the time limits clause, which still acts as a blocker, though it is not quite as disagreeable as before.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Isn't the appeals process a fair compromise? If any detainee can appeal the legality of their detention at any time, and be released if the detention is illegal, why are specific time limits necessary?

[Philimbesi]

Isn't the appeals process a fair compromise? If any detainee can appeal the legality of their detention at any time, and be released if the detention is illegal, why are specific time limits necessary?

I think if the Auralian ambassador would consult their Quelshi dictionary, they will realize that the word compromise is glaringly absent.

[Dagguerro]

Isn't the appeals process a fair compromise? If any detainee can appeal the legality of their detention at any time, and be released if the detention is illegal, why are specific time limits necessary?

In case the Ambassador for Auralia hasn't noticed the delegation from Quelesh has a great fondness for micromanagement in resolutions...

[Sanctaria]

I'll be submitting this over the next few days. There may be a few small changes on submission, but if anything they'll be stylistic in nature.

I'll probably remove the word "reasonable" from the final clause as it's nothing but extraneous.

[Damanucus]

I'll be submitting this over the next few days. There may be a few small changes on submission, but if anything they'll be stylistic in nature.

I'll probably remove the word "reasonable" from the final clause as it's nothing but extraneous.

No, keep "reasonable" in there; otherwise we may end up with problems with people using indefinite detention without reason.

Besides that, expect my approval and support.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus