[PASSED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Damanucus]

• Why do you need to detain football hooligans? Kick them out on their bottoms. You don't need to detain when you can isolate.

And what happens when they turn violent after you eject them? They become a greater threat to the public, hence detention to let them settle might be needed here.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Retired WerePenguins]

I hate to throw three posts in a row, but these are completely different points. I'm really not sure where one gets the notion of the sancity of immediate detention. The self motivation of an innocent person clearing himself is a fundamental notion in modern literature and it seems improper to interfere with that. On the other hand, those suspects that are clearly guilty only ensure their own conviction if left to their own devices or else were no significant risk to the community at large if they do not. Pre trial detention needs to be determined solely on the basis of the treat of the person to the society at large (and the potential of flight risk, which doesn't actually need detention powers per se). So this law gives you 96 hours to get the formal charges down. From there everything proceeds at a reasonable and proper pace.

Once again, I don't see the need to detain prior to actually getting a reasonable case. Detention of the wrong people is wrong, in part because the very dangerous guilty party is still on the loose. Since it doesn't prevent other methods from preventing a suspected criminial from posing an immediate threat to society I cannot see how the resolution as written is a terribaly bad thing. Since my nationals might occasionally visit other WA nations, I can only see this as a good thing.

[Knootoss]

[list][*]"psychiatric commitment" ... look it up ... it's a proper term See here for an argument for involuntary psychiatric commitment.

It's a random, undefined term that certainly wouldn't cover someone who is dancing around in his underwear because his video went viral on the internet. Forcing nations to use this randomly chosen word locks out many cases where it is highly justified.

[*]Why do you need to detain football hooligans? Kick them out on their bottoms. You don't need to detain when you can isolate.

As has already pointed out, this will lead to mobs pillaging inner cities before the police can do something. And then, it can only detain specific individuals rather than the entire mob. This will make effective crowd control impossible.

[*]If you have evidence that they are illegal immigrants you can detain them subject to section 4 until the legal detention hearing takes place, assuming you do this within a reasonable time frame, which should be in your best interest to do so anyway. Holding illegal immigrants for shits and giggles is illogical.

Forcing nations to make illegal immigration a crime, as section 4 suggests, is even more illogical. That means the people you want to temporarily detain before removing them for the country have to be put on trial and then in jail. Thanks, "Habeas Corpus Act"!

*]The voluntary clause certainly allows drunk detention. I would even argue that such situations shoudn't even be considered in this resolution unless you are holding them in the same pen as the rapists. Basically you are allowing the use of holding facilities for people who are not techincally objecting.

So how exactly do you and the other proponents of this ridiculous resolution suppose that someone who is drunk off their face can give their "fully informed, uncoerced consent" to being temporarily detained?

[Retired WerePenguins]

And what happens when they turn violent after you eject them?

They get charged with a crime since most violence is, generally speaking, criminial.

[Suche nach Wahrheit]

As this "legislation" impinged upon the sovereign right of Suche nach Wahrheit to govern and subvert administer its justice program, I find that I must place myself squarely opposed to it. Our entire justice system, which is notable for having completely eliminated all crime in our nation, depends upon the ability to maliciously confine lawfully incarcerate those that stand accused of crime for as long as it takes to resolve the matter.

Ask any of our nation's chattel citizens, and I am sure they will beg for the mercy of a just system agree that our way works well for us, and provides iron-fisted governmental control the safe, secure and happy life that they enjoy.


Sicarius Rex
Supreme Eternal Dictator, Suche nach Wahrheit

[Retired WerePenguins]

Son of a ******* ******* ... the web page ate my reasonable reply. I am a write once sort of person; I generally start killing people rather than rewrite my aerguments. Forgive the terse reply I am not going to repeat myself.

[list][*]"psychiatric commitment" ... look it up ... it's a proper term See here for an argument for involuntary psychiatric commitment.

It's a random, undefined term that certainly wouldn't cover someone who is dancing around in his underwear because his video went viral on the internet. Forcing nations to use this randomly chosen word locks out many cases where it is highly justified.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. If we can write 15 page resolutions I can see the argument, but it's a reasonable term ... live with it.

[*]Why do you need to detain football hooligans? Kick them out on their bottoms. You don't need to detain when you can isolate.

As has already pointed out, this will lead to mobs pillaging inner cities before the police can do something. And then, it can only detain specific individuals rather than the entire mob. This will make effective crowd control impossible.

Isloation and dispersal is not the same as dentention and is not covered by this resolution. You don't need to detain and entire stadium to prevent a few people from rioting in the inner city; you keep those idiots from the inner city in the first place.

[*]If you have evidence that they are illegal immigrants you can detain them subject to section 4 until the legal detention hearing takes place, assuming you do this within a reasonable time frame, which should be in your best interest to do so anyway. Holding illegal immigrants for shits and giggles is illogical.

Forcing nations to make illegal immigration a crime, as section 4 suggests, is even more illogical. That means the people you want to temporarily detain before removing them for the country have to be put on trial and then in jail. Thanks, "Habeas Corpus Act"!

BS - if immigation is illegal is is against the laws by definition and by definitin it is a crime. Not all crimes result in jail time. Some may result in deportation and others may result in a fee.

*]The voluntary clause certainly allows drunk detention. I would even argue that such situations shoudn't even be considered in this resolution unless you are holding them in the same pen as the rapists. Basically you are allowing the use of holding facilities for people who are not techincally objecting.

So how exactly do you and the other proponents of this ridiculous resolution suppose that someone who is drunk off their face can give their "fully informed, uncoerced consent" to being temporarily detained?

I had a good argument on the notion of "fully informed, uncoerced consent" but the internet ate it and I'm not really in the mood to recreate it (eight people would have to die as I punch them to death in frustration). You don't have to be fully aware to be fully informed. Take the argument and invert it. What is not fully informed (information withheld) or coerced consent (through some means of force)? That's wrong.

[Quelesh]

(OOC: Long post ahead.)

The proposal does not specify who the impartial adjudicator is to be, which means that she can be whoever your nation wants her to be, so long as she's (1) impartial and (2) an adjudicator. This would be a judge in most legal systems.

But there is no guarantee that he will be impartial. Just because the law says something doesn't mean people will do it. This is open to so many abuses. Not every nation is free of corruption. And even though it could be a judge the proposal here doesn't say that he has to be. They could just pull a janitor from off the street who knows nothing about the law.

I don't see why a nation would draft janitors as judges, but you're right of course about corruption. Even though judges are supposed to be impartial, some of them may be corrupt, and some may let their personal biases affect how they decide cases. States should take steps to limit these phenomena, but I'm not naive enough to think that judicial corruption is going to completely disappear. The best I can do about that is to say "the adjudicator must be impartial," and trust member states to comply with this requirement in good faith, as required by GAR2.

Well, this act limits detaining people to two hours on a week. Gathering a simple report from people involved in the incident could take longer than two hours, let alone getting DNA testing done. Hence, how might the police be able to gather all the evidence in time? It is very costly to find a criminal once they have been released, not to mention the danger they could pose to society?

Clause 1, which contains the two hour time limit that you mention, regulates the detention of individuals who are not even suspected of a crime. If you have a suspect and you want to question her, you can hold her for 36 hours without charging her. Clause 1 does not apply to "potential criminals." Unless of course you mean that you consider the entire population of your nation to be potential criminals, and you want the right to detain them for extended periods of time without even having cause to suspect them of wrongdoing, because they "may" have done something, in which case that's a very unjust practice. Also note that, even in the case of suspicionless detention, the time limit can be extended to up to six hours if public safety requires it.

I am not misinterpreting the clause in question. It is very difficult to come to thorough conclusions about a case in 36 hours; if there is some evidence pointing to the detainee's guilt, yet it is still not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is better for the police to go through a methodical investigation before officially charging the accused with the crime. The accused's right to a speedy trial is fair; however, a right to a hasty trial, in a period of time, which no case that prove's the detainee's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be established, is exemplary of excessive civil rights. Moderation is key.

You don't have to come to conclusions about a case in 36 hours, nor do you have to establish proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in 36 hours. That's what a trial is for. You just have to have enough evidence to be able to charge her with a crime (not enough to convict her; you have until the reasonably speedy trial to come up with that evidence). Note that this proposal does not regulate the evidence standard required for the filing of formal criminal charges. That's up to your nation (or perhaps a future WA resolution).

Involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, who may be dangerous. (The new proposal only allows "psychiatric" commitment, whatever the hell that is)

Involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, because of their mental illness, is "psychiatric" commitment by definition. There is a proposal recently submitted which would regulate this practice and which I support, but this resolution does not affect this area at all.

Temporary detention of football hooligans. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)

Have these football hooligans committed a crime, such as disorderly conduct? If so, you can arrest them and hold them for up to 36 hours without charge, and after charging them you can hold them until trial. If they're not even suspected of committing a crime (i.e. they're just being rowdy, and your nation doesn't like that even though it hasn't made rowdiness a crime), then you can still temporarily detain them for up to two hours until they calm down. In fact, you can detain them for up to six hours, even without suspecting them of a crime, if necessary to protect public safety.

Temporary administrative detention of illegal immigrants. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)

Is illegal immigration not a crime in your country? If not, you may want to fix that. Otherwise, how you nation handles its immigration policy is none of my concern.

Letting drunks sleep it out. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained and can give their " fully informed, uncoerced consent" which is by definition impossible if you are drunk.)

I don't understand this obsession that you and certain other ambassadors have with detaining drunk people who haven't actually done anything wrong. This doesn't make sense to me. But then again, if your nation feels that the public safety requires the detention of drunk people, you can detain them for up to six hours without suspecting them of a crime. And if you really absolutely insist on being able to detain people longer than that for being drunk, then you can make public drunkenness a crime. Not that I think you should, but this resolution does nothing to prevent your nation from doing so.

2 hours is far too little time to consider charges for a person suspected of a complicated terrorist attack, and that person would have to be released.

This is outright wrong, and you know that it's wrong. I pointed out your error in the previous debate on this topic (OOC: on the 10ki forums), and you're repeating it here, so I can only assume that you're deliberately lying about this. The two hour time limit, as you well know, regulates suspicionless detention - that is, detention of an individual without even suspecting her of a crime. If you suspect her of a crime (e.g. a terrorist attack), you have 36 hours (or possibly up to 132 hours) to formally charge her with that crime. You don't have to come up with enough evidence to win a conviction - just enough evidence to file charges. And, what's more, this resolution doesn't even regulate the standard of evidence needed to file formal charges; that's up to your nation.

Also, let me add to my objections from the last time that this proposal would BAN MEDICAL QUARANTINE except in the event of "a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen". So a disease that is wreaking havoc on a multitude of nations yet which is not global would not be a just cause to allow medical quarantine. Similarly, a pandemic that isn't caused by an "infectious pathogen" but by something else is also not just cause for imposing a medical quarantine.

No, it wouldn't ban medical quarantine. First, you're wrong about the definition of "pandemic." A pandemic need not be global. (OOC: Check out a couple of definitions.) It need only cover a "wide geographic area." Second, it is not necessary for a pandemic to already be present in order for your nation to implement a quarantine. This resolution does not prevent detention that is necessary to prevent a pandemic, even if there is not yet a pandemic. Third, please give me an example of "something else."

The Imperial Chiefdom finds the inclusion of statements allowing retrials after lawfully vacated acquittals to be incredibly disingenuous, especially since the authoring nation has just recently submitted a passed resolution that specifically bans retrials after acquittals, even those lawfully vacated. Using the fig leaf of "international law" to render an entire clause moot even before the clause can enter into force is frankly appalling. As such, we are forced to cast our vote against this resolution until and unless our concerns can be addressed.

The "unless..." exception in the clause in question was necessary to ensure that, in the event that Double Jeopardy Prohibition were repealed, this resolution would not itself prohibit the practice of double jeopardy. It is not my intention to prohibit double jeopardy with this resolution, and therefore this exception was necessary. I do think that double jeopardy should be prohibited, which is why I authored and campaigned for my Double Jeopardy Prohibition resolution. However, if that resolution were ever repealed, you wouldn't have to worry about this resolution prohibiting your nation from practicing double jeopardy.

I don't see how you think I'm being disingenuous here; I've been quite up front about this.

Whatever flaws the resolution may have, We feel this is a vital and necessary protection to have on the books. We vote for.

Thank you very much for your support!

Which brings me back to my nice little point on exceptions. If you want to prevent these things from happening, then tell us what it will affect. Namely, this is probably closer to what it should've been:

Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, with the exception of the following:

• Voluntary protective custody, in which case detention may be as long as is needed to ensure the individual's personal protection;
• Commitment for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, in which case detention will be only as long as needed for the evaluation or treatment

Why is this formatting superior to my own? I don't see how your formatting is any better than mine, especially since the result is the same. I certainly don't see why my formatting for the exceptions should be unacceptable to you but your formatting be ideal. They both do the same thing. Your objection here appears to be purely an objection to my choice of formatting.

I'm still of the opinion that an entire resolution is not needed to address Habeas Corpus. A one line clause in a replacement resolution for the rights of the detained should suffice.

The core habeas corpus protection (the right to challenge the legality of one's detention) can indeed be addressed in a single line, and is in this resolution. The remainder of this resolution consists of restrictions on the legality of detention, which are so logically related to habeas corpus that I think they should be included in a single resolution. (The author of GAR67, despite (1) filling that resolution full of loopholes and (2) omitting the actual right to challenge the legality of one's detention, felt the same, because the legality of detention is very much logically related to habeas corpus.)

The voluntary clause certainly allows drunk detention. I would even argue that such situations shoudn't even be considered in this resolution unless you are holding them in the same pen as the rapists. Basically you are allowing the use of holding facilities for people who are not techincally objecting.

Well, I woudn't actually say that. In my opinion, it's not reasonable to say that intoxicated people can grant informed, uncoerced consent to being held in protective custody. The voluntary protective custody clause certainly wasn't intended for drunk people. Regardless, though, six hours (per public safety exception to clause 1) should be enough, and if a member state absolutely insists on being able to detain drunk people for longer than that, for some reason, then it can make public drunkenness a crime.

Anyway, thank you for trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Why do you need to detain football hooligans? Kick them out on their bottoms. You don't need to detain when you can isolate.

And what happens when they turn violent after you eject them? They become a greater threat to the public, hence detention to let them settle might be needed here.

And you can do so, for up to six hours, if necessary to protect the public safety. Six hours is long enough to calm down. Keep in mind that we're not even talking about people who are being unlawfully disorderly, committing vandalism or hurting anyone. We're just talking about rowdy people who haven't committed any crime.

It's a random, undefined term that certainly wouldn't cover someone who is dancing around in his underwear because his video went viral on the internet. Forcing nations to use this randomly chosen word locks out many cases where it is highly justified.

First, why would you want to commit (i.e. lock up) someone like that anyway? What threat is he? Second, if your nation really considers "dancing around in his underwear" sufficient evidence of mental illness to justify involuntary commitment, this resolution wouldn't prevent you from doing so. The phrase "psychiatric commitment" has a recognized meaning, and would apply in a case like this, if your nation really insisted on doing so. The proposal submitted by my Luxian colleague would regulate this practice, which is something I support.

As has already pointed out, this will lead to mobs pillaging inner cities before the police can do something. And then, it can only detain specific individuals rather than the entire mob. This will make effective crowd control impossible.

That's absurd. I've already pointed out that people can be suspicionlessly detained for up to two hours, and up to six hours if public safety requires it. So the "entire mob," as you put it, can be detained, even without suspecting any of them of committing a crime, for up to six hours. There's no legitimate reason to detain them longer than that if they haven't committed any crime in the first place.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Firstaria]

*enters the room, sees the resolution*

Ok, only one question, is this the same shit that Quelesh is trying to make it pass again or he actually took the decency of changing it for the better? Because I've things to rule and if my job here is gonna became to keep score on how many time Quelesh tries this, then I'm directly proposing a resolution law for double jeopardy for same shit different day.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Could the Ambassador for Quelesh please tell us where the time limits came from? Has there been a vote on them? An open discussion of the length of limits? Or has the ambassador, as we suspect, simply pulled the numbers from an orifice?

[Merfurian]

Honourable Members;

We rise to issue our Submissions regarding this proposal. We believe certain provisions (and practices of the author) do not work.
We first draw your attention to the following:

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

If the "lawful criminal sentence" could be counted as part of detention time during de novo procedings, then the provision cannot legally apply! For instance, if a person were sentenced to six years' imprisonment, but two years later an Appeals Chamber ordered de novo procedings, which took seven years, all of which mandated the continual detention of the individual (such as in our nation), how could the provision be applied?

Secondly, we draw your attention to the following:

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law

This would not apply in our nation. Because of the multiple layers of appeal in our nation, a person could be in detention for many years (until he decides to stop appealing). Further, the "any longer than is necessary" is purely subjective. Some nations - especially dictatorships - may detain someone for many years under the pretext that it is taking a while to acquire evidence to indict the individual, whilst in reality they have no intentions of issuing an indictment at all. According to this provision, their practice would be lawful.

Thirdly, we deplore the practice that has transpired wherein the lead author deleted the co-author (Connopolis) from the proposal after a mere technicality, and continued to pretend that he had never contributed, nor existed, whilst some of us remember the contributions that he made to this proposal. We request that the lead author recognise the co-author's efforts. We wonder as to why the Author engaged a co-author if he were then to delete the co-author's contributions, and pretend that the idea and proposal were all his.

We stand opposed, and await a satisfactory answer from the author, which addresses each of our points in detail.

Sincerely;

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Retired WerePenguins]

Could the Ambassador for Quelesh please tell us where the time limits came from? Has there been a vote on them? An open discussion of the length of limits? Or has the ambassador, as we suspect, simply pulled the numbers from an orifice?

Thus Spake Zarathustra ... or were you thinking of a different orifice?

One should ask instead why does thou object to them? Do you deem them too short, or too long? In the end, someone's got to pick them and it might as well be the resolution author.

[Zaklen]

The time limits take no consideration for transportation difficulties, security checks, and, frankly, the possibility that a member-states citizens may have lifespans short enough that a suspicion less detention, which, in my opinion, no reasonable government would use, could be the equivalent of a life in prison. The time limits need to be removed, and left to the jurisdiction of the individual nation.

If you wish to prevent abuse, make some sort of committee to regulate it, don't shove these ridiculous time limits down people's throats.

[Retired WerePenguins]

The time limits take no consideration for transportation difficulties, security checks, and, frankly, the possibility that a member-states citizens may have lifespans short enough that a suspicion less detention, which, in my opinion, no reasonable government would use, could be the equivalent of a life in prison. The time limits need to be removed, and left to the jurisdiction of the individual nation.

I'll assume for a moment that you are in fact serious. So I will take your points one by one.

How long does it take for you to transport your not yet accused to detention? If we are talking hours then that's your problem. If you have serious problems with these limits then you have serious problems with your criminal system in the first place. Your nation should be quarenteened.

Sentient beings whose life span is measured in a few days or less would find that any WA resolution is a multi-generational affair. I highly doubt they would even be in the WA.

Simple fact, if you remove all time limits some idiot will define them as infinity and beyond. Not that it matters; it is physically impossible to make any resolution idiot proof. Since we know that the WA is filled with idiots, that limits what can and cannot be done in the WA. I recommend resigning from the WA since the WA clearly cannot be proof against idiots like you.

[Vicuscia]

Could the author kindly explain why this Act allows for the detention of persons "not even suspected of a crime"? Such a practice, even if limited only to a maximum of two hours, seems abhorrent to the concept of liberty. As said, such persons are not suspected of committing a crime, much less being the subject of an arrest, with or without a warrant.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

As far as the transportation issue goes, whichever way you look at it, the limits are a threat. If you take them as meaning 'Two hours maximum, and be damned the circumstance', then you have the issue of releasing suspects before they reach the police station in rural areas, if you take it to mean 'two hours in the cells', then you could ship suspects around in police vans all the live-long day.

This proposal simply doesn't address the problems with the previous one.

[Quelesh]

Ok, only one question, is this the same shit that Quelesh is trying to make it pass again or he actually took the decency of changing it for the better? Because I've things to rule and if my job here is gonna became to keep score on how many time Quelesh tries this, then I'm directly proposing a resolution law for double jeopardy for same shit different day.

I suggest that you read the resolution at vote, and you'll quickly notice the relevant revisions from the previous incarnation.

Could the Ambassador for Quelesh please tell us where the time limits came from? Has there been a vote on them? An open discussion of the length of limits? Or has the ambassador, as we suspect, simply pulled the numbers from an orifice?

The "vote on them" is being conducted as we speak.

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

If the "lawful criminal sentence" could be counted as part of detention time during de novo procedings, then the provision cannot legally apply! For instance, if a person were sentenced to six years' imprisonment, but two years later an Appeals Chamber ordered de novo procedings, which took seven years, all of which mandated the continual detention of the individual (such as in our nation), how could the provision be applied?

If trials in your nation take seven years, then your nation is almost certainly in violation of GAR37, which requires that everyone who is charged with a crime be brought to trial with "reasonable speed." Here is the relevant clause from GAR37:

MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence;

If this clause provides inadequate speedy trial protections, then that is not the fault of this resolution; it's a matter for a future WA resolution to address (likely a repeal/replace of GAR37).

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law

This would not apply in our nation. Because of the multiple layers of appeal in our nation, a person could be in detention for many years (until he decides to stop appealing). Further, the "any longer than is necessary" is purely subjective. Some nations - especially dictatorships - may detain someone for many years under the pretext that it is taking a while to acquire evidence to indict the individual, whilst in reality they have no intentions of issuing an indictment at all. According to this provision, their practice would be lawful.

GAR37, and its requirement for a reasonably speedy trial, does apply in your nation (actually, it doesn't, because Merfurian is not a member of the World Assembly), as well as any dictatorships that are in the World Assembly. If GAR37's speedy trial protections are not sufficient, then that is something that will have to be addressed by repealing/replacing GAR37, and is outside the scope of this resolution.

The time limits take no consideration for transportation difficulties, security checks

I certainly am not interested in allowing member states to use "transportation difficulties" or "security checks" as an excuse to detain people who aren't even suspected of wrongdoing for extended periods of time. Six hours (if necessary for the protection of public safety) is more than enough time to detain someone without even suspecting her of wrongdoing, and if it's not, then your nation really should not be detaining her in the first place.

If you wish to prevent abuse, make some sort of committee to regulate it, don't shove these ridiculous time limits down people's throats.

I am not opposed to the creation of committees, where they are truly necessary, but a committee was not necessary for this resolution. There is no need to create an additional WA bureaucracy here.

Could the author kindly explain why this Act allows for the detention of persons "not even suspected of a crime"? Such a practice, even if limited only to a maximum of two hours, seems abhorrent to the concept of liberty. As said, such persons are not suspected of committing a crime, much less being the subject of an arrest, with or without a warrant.

There are two reasons. First, this resolution likely would not pass if clause 1 outright prohibited all suspicionless detention. Second, while I think that suspicionless detention is, in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, inappropriate and should not be done, there are a few limited circumstances in which a brief period of detention may be appropriate or necessary. I decided to institute strict time limits in order to minimize abuse of this provision (something that the original GAR67 egregiously failed at).

(For an example of one of those limited circumstances in which brief suspicionless detention may be appropriate, consider a situation in which there is a bomb threat against an apartment building. The police may need to evacuate the building and briefly question the residents as to whether they have noticed anything suspicious. The residents may be required to leave the building and to stay with the police until they have answered a few questions. This is detention because they are not free to go, but the residents are not suspected of a crime. I don't want to prohibit this practice here; merely to place limits on its use to minimize abuse.)

As far as the transportation issue goes, whichever way you look at it, the limits are a threat. If you take them as meaning 'Two hours maximum, and be damned the circumstance', then you have the issue of releasing suspects before they reach the police station in rural areas

If the individual being detained is a "suspect," as you say, then clause 2 applies, not clause 1. Clause 1 applies only to suspicionless detention. In the situation which you describe, the suspect could be detained for up to 36 hours (or possibly longer, depending on whether the limited exception in clause 2 applies) without being charged with a crime.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

(The remainder of this post is OOC.)

Thirdly, we deplore the practice that has transpired wherein the lead author deleted the co-author (Connopolis) from the proposal after a mere technicality, and continued to pretend that he had never contributed, nor existed, whilst some of us remember the contributions that he made to this proposal. We request that the lead author recognise the co-author's efforts. We wonder as to why the Author engaged a co-author if he were then to delete the co-author's contributions, and pretend that the idea and proposal were all his.

The resolution at vote is my work alone. The player behind Connopolis did not contribute to the resolution currently at vote. All of its wording and ideas are mine. The only portion of the earlier incarnation of this resolution that was written by the player behind Connopolis was the transactional immunity clause. As you are probably aware, the player behind Connopolis, without my knowledge or consent, requested to the mods that the first version of the resolution be removed from queue. Therefore, it was necessary to remove the transactional immunity clause written by that player from the resolution, so that I could resubmit it without a co-author and not have to worry about another player unilaterally killing this resolution again.

Furthermore, the original idea of a repeal/replace of GAR67 was mine. I have been working on this project since May 2011.

and, frankly, the possibility that a member-states citizens may have lifespans short enough that a suspicion less detention, which, in my opinion, no reasonable government would use, could be the equivalent of a life in prison.

If other players want to roleplay as sapient fruit flies, they are welcome to do so, but I am under no obligation to attempt to take into account every single roleplay possibility when writing resolutions.

[Retired WerePenguins]

As far as the transportation issue goes, whichever way you look at it, the limits are a threat. If you take them as meaning 'Two hours maximum, and be damned the circumstance', then you have the issue of releasing suspects before they reach the police station in rural areas, if you take it to mean 'two hours in the cells', then you could ship suspects around in police vans all the live-long day.

If I have to drive a person two hours to a detention facility, (well I don't have to drive, I mean one of my nation's officers of the law) then I have a much bigger problem with the system. I have a hard enough time with the notion of having precincts in rural areas separated by 10 to 30 miles, but you are talking a distance of 100 miles (at 50 MPH) and that's wacko land there. It almost makes more sense to simply detain them in the police car in that case. It would also be understood that if you were going to detain someone you should "go directly to jail; do not pass GO; do not collect $200".

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

The "vote on them" is being conducted as we speak.

So the ambassador for Quelesh has chosen the time limits personally? Does that strike anyone else as sinister?

[Quelesh]

The "vote on them" is being conducted as we speak.

So the ambassador for Quelesh has chosen the time limits personally? Does that strike anyone else as sinister?

The time limits in this resolution are very much comparable to the time limits in the old GAR67, except that GAR67 contained gaping loopholes allowing its time limits to be ignored.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

The time limits in this resolution are very much comparable to the time limits in the old GAR67, except that GAR67 contained gaping loopholes allowing its time limits to be ignored.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

And does the fact that there were holes in previous proposals do anything to mitigate the flaws in this one?

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolak, World Assembly Delegate of Europeia and Minister of Media will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 4/2 internal vote directing such action. The proposal seem to rectify previous issues and, without blaring flaws, we support it.

[Dylin]

I, Lothar Prolak, World Assembly Delegate of Europeia and Minister of Media will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 4/2 internal vote directing such action. The proposal seem to rectify previous issues and, without blaring flaws, we support it.

(Image)

I, Too will be voting AYE for this.

[Quelesh]

And does the fact that there were holes in previous proposals do anything to mitigate the flaws in this one?

You are seeing flaws where there are none. The alleged "flaws" of this resolution have been repeatedly debunked here.

I, Lothar Prolak, World Assembly Delegate of Europeia and Minister of Media will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 4/2 internal vote directing such action. The proposal seem to rectify previous issues and, without blaring flaws, we support it.

I, Too will be voting AYE for this.

Thank you very much for your support.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Bears Armed]

As far as the transportation issue goes, whichever way you look at it, the limits are a threat. If you take them as meaning 'Two hours maximum, and be damned the circumstance', then you have the issue of releasing suspects before they reach the police station in rural areas, if you take it to mean 'two hours in the cells', then you could ship suspects around in police vans all the live-long day.

If I have to drive a person two hours to a detention facility, (well I don't have to drive, I mean one of my nation's officers of the law) then I have a much bigger problem with the system. I have a hard enough time with the notion of having precincts in rural areas separated by 10 to 30 miles, but you are talking a distance of 100 miles (at 50 MPH) and that's wacko land there.

Excuse me? What makes you think that absolutely everywhere in the backwoods is -- or even "should be" -- accessible by roads upon which driving that fast without a verry high risk of accidents would actually be feasible?!?
And for that matter what about member nations that, for one reason or another, don't even have "powered" vehicles on the first paw?

[Datavia]

Datavia votes FOR. A bad resolution in this case is better than no resolution at all (as will be the case according to the train of thought of most opponents to this proposal).