[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

[Mousebumples]

Glen-Rhodes finds that the Habeas Corpus Act is more reminiscent of domestic-level legislation or judicial requirements. It contains many arbitrary time restrictions. It also delves into issues that aren't commonly understood to deal with the writ of habeas corpus. Article 7 is the closest thing to the actual writ itself. The rest may deal with due process rights, but not necessarily habeas corpus, and there is no reason for the World Assembly to be dictating due process rights with this kind of specificity.

While we do not necessarily agree with all of the arguments put forth in this repeal, Glen-Rhodes does support the overall repeal campaign. Furthermore, we suggest that the World Assembly establish the writ of habeas corpus throughout all member states, but also create a human rights court that can adjudicate on whether or not a state's implementation of the writ is acceptable under modern democratic principles.

Thanks for your support (and apologies to all for the double-post, but my previous post was getting a bit lengthy as-is), and I agree that the writ of habeas corpus should be established within WA member nations, which is why I can tentatively support the replacement draft being put forward by Santaria here. (I say "tentatively support" because the draft is not yet final, and I reserve the right to object should some horrendous provisions be added. )

Thanks again,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Sanctaria]

(I say "tentatively support" because the draft is not yet final, and I reserve the right to object should some horrendous provisions be added. )

Trust me, Ambassador, unless some massive fault is discovered, or unintended consequence revealed, the current draft is as final as it is going to get.

[Knootoss]

APPLAUDS the intent of the author to protect individuals from unreasonable detainment practices within WA member nations;

Nothing much praiseworthy about the intent of the author. The general idea is good, though.

[*]Detainment of inebriated and/orintoxicated individuals would be limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period in nations who do not criminalize public intoxication. Holding such individuals for the duration of their intoxication, for the purposes of public safety, will likely be limited to one occasion per week, which may be insufficientfor those who frequently imbibe.

6 hours isn't enough to put someone in for even a single night. It's not just a problem for frequent drinkers.

[*]The limitations on Six hours of administrative detainment of illegal immigrants may not allow WA member nations to determine where such individuals originated from prior to expelling them from their nation.

Emphasise the six hours. Not just "limitations"

Also, some of the exemptions are poorly worded. Specifically, I would suggest adding

DISMAYED that clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines for deadly or debilitating diseases which are either not yet at risk of becoming a pandemic, or which are caused by anything other than an infectious pathogen.

[Merfurian]

Being as I am your "test subject", there is still one slight problem with the text:


What does that point actually mean? I read the following paragraph - this one:

-
- and I became even more confused! Please explain what the problems are surrounding the first set of quoted text ("clarifies that..."), and please explain the arguments propogated in the "realizes that the aforementioned phrasing" segment are.

Klause Uliyan
Chief Ambassador and Test Subject

Okay, let me try to explain this, and then maybe you can help me figure out if there's a better way to word things to make this point within the repeal text.

The resolution itself (in part) reads as follows:

1. 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. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

...

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:
8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;
9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;
10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;
11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and
12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Now, let's look at the first line:

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

I've underlined and bolded the most "important" word in this clause, in my mind. Due to the presence of this word in the phrase, all of the following listed items (all 5 of them) are legal. This means that your nation can place individuals into voluntary protective custody, may involuntarily commit individuals for psychiatric treatment, may detain prisoners of war, and may quarantine individuals due to a pandemic. It also doesn't outlaw double jeopardy, but since that doesn't have much to do with "time limits" (and, currently, is already covered under a different WA resolution), I'm pretty much going to ignore that one.

However, the only thing the resolution says is that those things are NOT PROHIBITED. Let's make believe that this resolution was still in the drafting phase. What if the clause I quoted before read as follows, instead:

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting or otherwise limiting any of the following:

How do those extra 3 words change things? Fairly significantly, I'd think. As the resolution is currently written, the time limits in Clauses 1 and 2 DO APPLY to the items that follow the clause. That means that involuntary psychiatric commitment and medical quarantine - in the absence of any sort of criminal act - can only last for a maximum time limit of 6 hours in 7 days. (Understandably, both of those situations would be "necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained," which is why the limit is 2+4 versus the regular 2 mentioned in Clause 1.)

I'm fairly certain that the Ambassador from Quelesh intended the meaning in the amended phrase. However, as I am quite fond of saying, "The law IS what the law SAYS." The resolution does not say that the following list of things are not affected by the terms and limits of the resolution in question. It only states that they are NOT PROHIBITED. Full stop, the end. That's it.

What's the point of having someone be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility if you only have 6 hours (per 7 day period) to get them medicated and hopefully consenting to the commitment process for their own well-being and treatment?

What's the point of instituting a medical quarantine - for an infectious pandemic - if you're only able to hold people for 6 hours (per 7 day period) ? That's not enough time to stop a person with STREP THROAT or PINK EYE from being contagious - let alone an individual with a (likely) more serious medical condition.

I have the character space, so I'm happy to elaborate further with regards to that clause, if you have specific suggestions that you think would help to spell things out a bit better. Please, if you have any suggestions (or, of course, if anything is still not clear), let me know.

Thanks again,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

OK, how about you try this:

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are only allowed for up to 6 hours in a 7 day period due to the time restrictions listed within this resolution and DECLARES that such limitations are restrictive in situations such as "involuntary psychological committment", because professionals will not have adequate time to perform their duties

(reword that last red bit in any way you want)

[Quelesh]

Okay, let me try to explain this, and then maybe you can help me figure out if there's a better way to word things to make this point within the repeal text.

The resolution itself (in part) reads as follows:

1. 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. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

...

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:
8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;
9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;
10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;
11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and
12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Now, let's look at the first line:

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

I've underlined and bolded the most "important" word in this clause, in my mind. Due to the presence of this word in the phrase, all of the following listed items (all 5 of them) are legal. This means that your nation can place individuals into voluntary protective custody, may involuntarily commit individuals for psychiatric treatment, may detain prisoners of war, and may quarantine individuals due to a pandemic. It also doesn't outlaw double jeopardy, but since that doesn't have much to do with "time limits" (and, currently, is already covered under a different WA resolution), I'm pretty much going to ignore that one.

However, the only thing the resolution says is that those things are NOT PROHIBITED. Let's make believe that this resolution was still in the drafting phase. What if the clause I quoted before read as follows, instead:

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting or otherwise limiting any of the following:

How do those extra 3 words change things? Fairly significantly, I'd think. As the resolution is currently written, the time limits in Clauses 1 and 2 DO APPLY to the items that follow the clause. That means that involuntary psychiatric commitment and medical quarantine - in the absence of any sort of criminal act - can only last for a maximum time limit of 6 hours in 7 days. (Understandably, both of those situations would be "necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained," which is why the limit is 2+4 versus the regular 2 mentioned in Clause 1.)

I'm fairly certain that the Ambassador from Quelesh intended the meaning in the amended phrase. However, as I am quite fond of saying, "The law IS what the law SAYS." The resolution does not say that the following list of things are not affected by the terms and limits of the resolution in question. It only states that they are NOT PROHIBITED. Full stop, the end. That's it.

What's the point of having someone be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility if you only have 6 hours (per 7 day period) to get them medicated and hopefully consenting to the commitment process for their own well-being and treatment?

What's the point of instituting a medical quarantine - for an infectious pandemic - if you're only able to hold people for 6 hours (per 7 day period) ? That's not enough time to stop a person with STREP THROAT or PINK EYE from being contagious - let alone an individual with a (likely) more serious medical condition.

I have the character space, so I'm happy to elaborate further with regards to that clause, if you have specific suggestions that you think would help to spell things out a bit better. Please, if you have any suggestions (or, of course, if anything is still not clear), let me know.

(OOC: I was hesitant to post in this thread, because I am fairly confident that, even if the definition of "prohibiting" were not at issue, Mousey would still seek to repeal this resolution anyway. However, the interpretation here of the CLARIFIES section is so wrong that I feel compelled to defend it.)

Your interpretation is flawed. To understand why, let's put forward the following scenario. Let's say that a member state locks up an individual for involuntary psychiatric commitment. Now, let's jump ahead six hours. At this point, the individual has been locked up for six hours straight, as part of her involuntary psychiatric commitment.

Your argument is that, at this point, clause 1 of GAR190 requires that the member state release her. In other words, your argument is that, at this point in time, from now until the end of the seven-day period, clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits the involuntary psychiatric commitment of this individual.

According to your interpretation, clause 1 of GAR190 does in fact prohibit the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients for 162 hours out of every 168-hour period. But this cannot be the case, as nothing in GAR190 shall be interpreted as prohibiting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients.

The resolution explicitly disallows your interpretation of it.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Merfurian]

Okay, let me try to explain this, and then maybe you can help me figure out if there's a better way to word things to make this point within the repeal text.

The resolution itself (in part) reads as follows:

Now, let's look at the first line:

I've underlined and bolded the most "important" word in this clause, in my mind. Due to the presence of this word in the phrase, all of the following listed items (all 5 of them) are legal. This means that your nation can place individuals into voluntary protective custody, may involuntarily commit individuals for psychiatric treatment, may detain prisoners of war, and may quarantine individuals due to a pandemic. It also doesn't outlaw double jeopardy, but since that doesn't have much to do with "time limits" (and, currently, is already covered under a different WA resolution), I'm pretty much going to ignore that one.

However, the only thing the resolution says is that those things are NOT PROHIBITED. Let's make believe that this resolution was still in the drafting phase. What if the clause I quoted before read as follows, instead:

How do those extra 3 words change things? Fairly significantly, I'd think. As the resolution is currently written, the time limits in Clauses 1 and 2 DO APPLY to the items that follow the clause. That means that involuntary psychiatric commitment and medical quarantine - in the absence of any sort of criminal act - can only last for a maximum time limit of 6 hours in 7 days. (Understandably, both of those situations would be "necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained," which is why the limit is 2+4 versus the regular 2 mentioned in Clause 1.)

I'm fairly certain that the Ambassador from Quelesh intended the meaning in the amended phrase. However, as I am quite fond of saying, "The law IS what the law SAYS." The resolution does not say that the following list of things are not affected by the terms and limits of the resolution in question. It only states that they are NOT PROHIBITED. Full stop, the end. That's it.

What's the point of having someone be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility if you only have 6 hours (per 7 day period) to get them medicated and hopefully consenting to the commitment process for their own well-being and treatment?

What's the point of instituting a medical quarantine - for an infectious pandemic - if you're only able to hold people for 6 hours (per 7 day period) ? That's not enough time to stop a person with STREP THROAT or PINK EYE from being contagious - let alone an individual with a (likely) more serious medical condition.

I have the character space, so I'm happy to elaborate further with regards to that clause, if you have specific suggestions that you think would help to spell things out a bit better. Please, if you have any suggestions (or, of course, if anything is still not clear), let me know.

(OOC: I was hesitant to post in this thread, because I am fairly confident that, even if the definition of "prohibiting" were not at issue, Mousey would still seek to repeal this resolution anyway. However, the interpretation here of the CLARIFIES section is so wrong that I feel compelled to defend it.)

Your interpretation is flawed. To understand why, let's put forward the following scenario. Let's say that a member state locks up an individual for involuntary psychiatric commitment. Now, let's jump ahead six hours. At this point, the individual has been locked up for six hours straight, as part of her involuntary psychiatric commitment.

Your argument is that, at this point, clause 1 of GAR190 requires that the member state release her. In other words, your argument is that, at this point in time, from now until the end of the seven-day period, clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits the involuntary psychiatric commitment of this individual.

According to your interpretation, clause 1 of GAR190 does in fact prohibit the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients for 162 hours out of every 168-hour period. But this cannot be the case, as nothing in GAR190 shall be interpreted as prohibiting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients.

The resolution explicitly disallows your interpretation of it.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Your own interpretation is not supported by the text of the Resolution. If the "clarifies" text reads as it does - that is, like this:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:
8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;
9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;
10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;
11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and
12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

then that means that items 8-12 are not exempted from the Resolution, and therefore, Mouse's interpretation - that items 8-12 are therefore bound by the other provisions in the Resolution - is correct. In the argument in your second paragraph - the one which states

nothing in GAR190 shall be interpreted as prohibiting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients [etc].

you merely state that such things are not prohibited, and that they may therefore continue. What you do not state is that they are exempted. If you wished to exempt them from the Resolution, which I believe you are now trying to do in an effort to save your mess of a resolution, then you should have written in an exemption clause specifically stating that actions such as voluntary detention etc were exempted. The fact that you did not therefore leaves only one interpretation - that items 8-12 in the first quotation are to be bound by the time limits in the rest of the Resolution.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

[Mousebumples]

Dr. Uliyan pretty much covered whatever response I would have, but I'm happy to repeat my thoughts on the matter if anyone really needs me to.

Bottom line: Nothing that follows the clause in question in the original resolution is PROHIBITED. (It's all allowed!) However, the execution of such matters is LIMITED by the preceding lines of the resolution.

Anyhow, with that in mind - along with a few other edits suggested by Ambassador Koopman and Dr. Uliyan - I have a new draft for the Assembly's consideration:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity, which specifically include:

1. The limitations of Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
   
   1. Detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period in nations who choose not to criminalize public intoxication. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.
   2. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to expelling them from their nation.
2. There are no exceptions for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
   
   1. Some may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime, which may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
   2. Some especially heinous crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed, which is not allowed.
3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed as an intimidation tactic.

DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited in that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days due to the time restrictions listed. As a result:

1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective, and this 6 hour limit would fail to aid most individuals in need of such assistance.
2. Individuals who must “medical quarantine” must be released after 6 hours, which would negate the quarantining efforts. 6 hours is an insufficient length of time for an individual to no longer be contagious when dealing with infectious pathogens.

NOTES that Clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines that may be in the best interests of overall public health for infections that are not yet at risk of causing a pandemic and may never achieve the wide geographic spread required to be classified as a pandemic.

HOPES that a more useful and universally applicable version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

So, you know how I said there was "plenty of character space to work with" ? Not true anymore. I had to make some phrasing cuts for the sake of character count, so if anything doesn't make sense or is less clear, PLEASE let me know. It's quite possible I have a -inducing grammar glitch in there somewhere. (I'm afraid Geoffrey, my Grammarian, is on holiday right now.)

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Knootoss]

In general: check your semicolons vs periods. I also suggest letting Geoffrey having another look:

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity, which specifically include:

DOCUMENTS isn't really a verb commonly used in resolutions. And interfere with "ensuring the safety and prosperity" is a bit vague. How about this to replace the original language:

However,

DISMAYED that the specific time limits listed in the resolution may put law enforcements in impossible position, for example:

Detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period in nations who choose not to criminalize public intoxication. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.

Using "in nations who choose not to criminalize public intoxication" really implicitly accepts Quelesh' flawed point that nations should change their entire set of laws to work around his badly worded resolution. I would suggest:

Administrative detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.

Some may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime, which may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.

Can this be made a bit clearer and shorter? The order of the sentence makes no sense.

Some especially heinous crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed, which is not allowed.

The problem isn't that the crimes are heinous, it is that such crimes are extremely complicated and that is why formulating charges might take longer.

DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

"such" offenses? What offenses?

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited in that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days due to the time restrictions listed. As a result:

This should be worded a bit more crisply. ((And am tired myself at the moment so not of much help atm! ))

Individuals who must “medical quarantine” must be released after 6 hours, which would negate the quarantining efforts. 6 hours is an insufficient length of time for an individual to no longer be contagious when dealing with infectious pathogens.

"Individuals who must “medical quarantine” " - Grammar

HOPES that a more useful and universally applicable version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

Not sure if "useful and universally applicable" is the best thing to use here. Perhaps just settle for a more generic "better"?

[Mousebumples]

In general: check your semicolons vs periods. I also suggest letting Geoffrey having another look:

Yes, that is the plan. He'll hopefully be back tomorrow ...

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity, which specifically include:

DOCUMENTS isn't really a verb commonly used in resolutions. And interfere with "ensuring the safety and prosperity" is a bit vague.

Editing goof on my part. It's clearer, at least, but additional revisions are possible, if necessary.

Using "in nations who choose not to criminalize public intoxication" really implicitly accepts Quelesh' flawed point that nations should change their entire set of laws to work around his badly worded resolution. I would suggest:
Administrative detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.

The main reason I had "CHOOSE NOT TO" in there was to try to make it clear that nations can and SHOULD be able to choose to not criminalize such things. However, for clarity, I pretty much accepted your suggestions here.

Some may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime, which may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.

Can this be made a bit clearer and shorter? The order of the sentence makes no sense.

I tried. Let me know if it's any better.

Some especially heinous crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed, which is not allowed.

The problem isn't that the crimes are heinous, it is that such crimes are extremely complicated and that is why formulating charges might take longer.

Edited for clarity and to better make the point I was getting at ... badly.

DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

"such" offenses? What offenses?

"such" offenses, referenced, highlighted in green underline. That could be reworded, as well, if necessary. (I didn't spell it out as I figure punishments can and will vary greatly between WA member nations and what may be fine-only in Mousebumples could be a capital offense in Knootoss. )

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited in that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days due to the time restrictions listed. As a result:

This should be worded a bit more crisply. ((And am tired myself at the moment so not of much help atm! ))

I tried to fix it up a bit. I also edited the sub-points that followed for clarity.

Individuals who must “medical quarantine” must be released after 6 hours, which would negate the quarantining efforts. 6 hours is an insufficient length of time for an individual to no longer be contagious when dealing with infectious pathogens.

"Individuals who must “medical quarantine” " - Grammar

Another editing flub that (I think) has been fixed in the updated draft.

HOPES that a more useful and universally applicable version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

Not sure if "useful and universally applicable" is the best thing to use here. Perhaps just settle for a more generic "better"?

And save on characters too!

Anyhow, the updated drafted will be edited into the OP shortly and reposted below this post as well.

[Mousebumples]

Re-updated, with help from Knoot and Moronist Decisions:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity of WA member nations, which specifically include:

1. The limitations of Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
   
   1. Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.
   2. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to expelling them from their nation.
2. There are no exceptions for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
   
   1. Some suspected individuals may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime, which may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
   2. Some crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may be especially complicated, which would require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed. Such a circumstance is outlawed under this resolution.
3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed as an intimidation tactic.

DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but they are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal charges. As a result:

1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective, and this 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment.
2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours, thus negating the quarantining efforts, as this is an insufficient length of time for an individual to no longer be contagious when dealing with infectious pathogens.

NOTES that Clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines that may be in the best interests of overall public health for infections that are not at risk of causing a pandemic but have the potential of causing widespread harm within a limited geographic area.

HOPES that an improved version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

[Merfurian]

Being your ever-patient Test Subject, I'm going to take up Knoot on his first point, insofar that the word

DOCUMENTS

is not a verb most commonly seen in WA Resolutions. I can see where you're going with this - you want to inform, and take note of the travesty, so I'd suggest you change it to

DOCUMENTS NOTES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity of WA member nations, which specifically include:

My addition is in red

Dr Klaus Uliyan
&c

[Mousebumples]

DOCUMENTS NOTES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity of WA member nations, which specifically include:

My addition is in red

Nikolas grumbles about the need for verb variation and how Geoffrey is likely to want his head on a platter when he comes back from vacation if Nikolas starts repeating verbs left and right.

What about HIGHLIGHTS? Or I could go with REALIZES and change the other REALIZES to something like CLARIFIES or SPECIFIES.

Thoughts?
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quelesh]

Bottom line: Nothing that follows the clause in question in the original resolution is PROHIBITED. (It's all allowed!) However, the execution of such matters is LIMITED by the preceding lines of the resolution.

This cannot be. You are arguing that clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment during those 162 hours. This cannot be the case, because the resolution itself explicitly says that it cannot be interpreted as doing that.

Also:

Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassadors with locking up drunk people just for being drunk. Nations shouldn't be doing that. In fact, I would support a proposal prohibiting it. However, under current international law, nations that absolutely insist on locking up drunk people for being drunk can still do so.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mousebumples]

Bottom line: Nothing that follows the clause in question in the original resolution is PROHIBITED. (It's all allowed!) However, the execution of such matters is LIMITED by the preceding lines of the resolution.

This cannot be. You are arguing that clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment during those 162 hours. This cannot be the case, because the resolution itself explicitly says that it cannot be interpreted as doing that.

No, I am arguing that involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period, while still being otherwise legal. Your resolution-lawyering is a valiant attempt to save your proposal, but since you are the only one fronting this argument, and the repeal text explicitly makes such a distinction, I have my doubts as to your argument's accuracy.

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassadors with locking up drunk people just for being drunk. Nations shouldn't be doing that. In fact, I would support a proposal prohibiting it. However, under current international law, nations that absolutely insist on locking up drunk people for being drunk can still do so.

Yes. They can. However, the time limits of this resolution limit the effectiveness of such a practice, which is another reason why we must repeal.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Sanctaria]

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassadors with locking up drunk people just for being drunk. Nations shouldn't be doing that.

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassador with pushing their outrageous, over-liberal agenda on the World Assembly. Nations shouldn't be doing that.

Ambassador, it's for their own safety. If someone is incredibly drunk and doesn't know the way to their home, is acting belligerent, and is being a public nuisance, the state has the responsibility to the individual to ensure that they remain safe. If they're too drunk too remember where they live, would you prefer the state leave them lie in the middle of the street? Evidently.

[Quelesh]

This cannot be. You are arguing that clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment during those 162 hours. This cannot be the case, because the resolution itself explicitly says that it cannot be interpreted as doing that.

No, I am arguing that involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period, while still being otherwise legal. Your resolution-lawyering is a valiant attempt to save your proposal, but since you are the only one fronting this argument, and the repeal text explicitly makes such a distinction, I have my doubts as to your argument's accuracy.

"Involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period" is another way of saying that it's prohibited during the remainder of the seven-day period. If involuntary psychiatric commitment is "limited" to six hours out of a 168-hour period, then it is prohibited during the remaining 162 hours. Therefore, since clause 1 of GAR190 cannot prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment, it also cannot "limit" it to six hours out of a 168-hour period (since to do so would be to prohibit it during the remaining 162 hours).

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Damanucus]

No, I am arguing that involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period, while still being otherwise legal. Your resolution-lawyering is a valiant attempt to save your proposal, but since you are the only one fronting this argument, and the repeal text explicitly makes such a distinction, I have my doubts as to your argument's accuracy.

"Involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period" is another way of saying that it's prohibited during the remainder of the seven-day period. If involuntary psychiatric commitment is "limited" to six hours out of a 168-hour period, then it is prohibited during the remaining 162 hours. Therefore, since clause 1 of GAR190 cannot prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment, it also cannot "limit" it to six hours out of a 168-hour period (since to do so would be to prohibit it during the remaining 162 hours).

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

And what we're saying is, does your resolution say that? Realistically, it does not. It just says it doesn't prohibit it. Is it unrestricted in terms of time? Good God no! You never said that. Tell us where it says that.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Knootoss]

Alright. Knootoss is greenlighting this.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Sanctaria]

Alright. Knootoss is greenlighting this.

Same. As if that wasn't evident by my replacement draft almost ready.

[Merfurian]

"Involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period" is another way of saying that it's prohibited during the remainder of the seven-day period. If involuntary psychiatric commitment is "limited" to six hours out of a 168-hour period, then it is prohibited during the remaining 162 hours. Therefore, since clause 1 of GAR190 cannot prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment, it also cannot "limit" it to six hours out of a 168-hour period (since to do so would be to prohibit it during the remaining 162 hours).

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

And what we're saying is, does your resolution say that? Realistically, it does not. It just says it doesn't prohibit it. Is it unrestricted in terms of time? Good God no! You never said that. Tell us where it says that.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I concur, and I must reiterate my argument. The fact that such incarceration such as involuntary psychiatric committment is not prohibited only leads to one interpretation - that Clause 1 applies thereto, and therefore the time limits enumerated therein MUST apply.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

[Quelesh]

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassadors with locking up drunk people just for being drunk. Nations shouldn't be doing that.

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassador with pushing their outrageous, over-liberal agenda on the World Assembly. Nations shouldn't be doing that.

Ambassador, it's for their own safety. If someone is incredibly drunk and doesn't know the way to their home, is acting belligerent, and is being a public nuisance, the state has the responsibility to the individual to ensure that they remain safe. If they're too drunk too remember where they live, would you prefer the state leave them lie in the middle of the street? Evidently.

When we talk about "administrative detention" of a drunk person, we're not talking about "letting her sleep it off." (Your nation could give her a ride to the police station and "let her sleep it off" on a cot there as much as it wants, as long as she's free to go at any time and therefore not being detained.) We're talking about having the police drag her, against her will, to a lockup and put her in a locked room, or put her under guard, or otherwise forcibly prevent her from leaving. We're talking about the imposition of force by large, intimidating people who probably have guns against a person who is in no state to defend herself against them.

There is no legitimate reason to lock up drunk people just for being drunk unless they're actually posing a threat. But if you insist upon doing so, there are several ways for you to do this consistent with international law. Your nation can make public drunkenness a crime - that way you can lock up anyone who's drunk in public to your authoritarian heart's content (well, for at least 36 hours without charge, anyway). Your nation can make disorderly conduct a crime, so you can lock up people, drunk or not, who are "acting belligerent" and "being a public nuisance." Or you can just routinely lock up drunk people for six hours.

Or your nation could just lose its authoritarian streak and stop locking up people who aren't hurting anyone.

Out of curiosity, though: Is public intoxication a crime in Sanctaria? Is disorderly conduct a crime in Sanctaria?

Oh, and I certainly do have a social-libertarian agenda. You'll get no argument from me on that.

"Involuntary psychiatric commitment is LIMITED to 6 hours within a 7 day period" is another way of saying that it's prohibited during the remainder of the seven-day period. If involuntary psychiatric commitment is "limited" to six hours out of a 168-hour period, then it is prohibited during the remaining 162 hours. Therefore, since clause 1 of GAR190 cannot prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment, it also cannot "limit" it to six hours out of a 168-hour period (since to do so would be to prohibit it during the remaining 162 hours).

And what we're saying is, does your resolution say that? Realistically, it does not. It just says it doesn't prohibit it. Is it unrestricted in terms of time? Good God no! You never said that. Tell us where it says that.

Yes, GAR190 absolutely does say that. It says, very explicitly, that nothing in that resolution can be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment. It is impossible for involuntary psychiatric commitment to be "limited" to six hours out of every 168 without it being prohibited during the remaining 162 hours, and since clause 1 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, it cannot be interpreted as limiting it to six hours out of every 168, since those are exactly one and the same thing.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

You know, I really don't understand the obsession of some ambassador with pushing their outrageous, over-liberal agenda on the World Assembly. Nations shouldn't be doing that.

Ambassador, it's for their own safety. If someone is incredibly drunk and doesn't know the way to their home, is acting belligerent, and is being a public nuisance, the state has the responsibility to the individual to ensure that they remain safe. If they're too drunk too remember where they live, would you prefer the state leave them lie in the middle of the street? Evidently.

When we talk about "administrative detention" of a drunk person, we're not talking about "letting her sleep it off." (Your nation could give her a ride to the police station and "let her sleep it off" on a cot there as much as it wants, as long as she's free to go at any time and therefore not being detained.) We're talking about having the police drag her, against her will, to a lockup and put her in a locked room, or put her under guard, or otherwise forcibly prevent her from leaving. We're talking about the imposition of force by large, intimidating people who probably have guns against a person who is in no state to defend herself against them.

There is no legitimate reason to lock up drunk people just for being drunk unless they're actually posing a threat. But if you insist upon doing so, there are several ways for you to do this consistent with international law. Your nation can make public drunkenness a crime - that way you can lock up anyone who's drunk in public to your authoritarian heart's content (well, for at least 36 hours without charge, anyway). Your nation can make disorderly conduct a crime, so you can lock up people, drunk or not, who are "acting belligerent" and "being a public nuisance." Or you can just routinely lock up drunk people for six hours.

Or your nation could just lose its authoritarian streak and stop locking up people who aren't hurting anyone.

Out of curiosity, though: Is public intoxication a crime in Sanctaria? Is disorderly conduct a crime in Sanctaria?

You don't recognise the responsibility of the state to protect a person, through detention if necessary? Somehow this doesn't surprise me. Taking a drunk person off the street, bringing them back to the police station, and keeping them in a cell to sleep it off only for them to be able to leave at any time rather defeats the point of the exercise.

Further, the Ambassador's view on what is and isn't authoritarian is beginning to confuse me. The Ambassador admonishes us for the nerve to detain people do they're not a risk to their own safety or the safety of others, calling it authoritarian, yet implores us to criminalise any and all actions we have to to comply with her piece of drivel which somehow managed to pass through this august assembly. If my nation were to criminalise these actions, I'm positive the Ambassador would be lambasting us for restricting civil liberties. The Ambassador's credibility is continually in question.

Oh, and I certainly do have a social-libertarian agenda. You'll get no argument from me on that.

It is your stubborn, aggressive implication of that societal anarchism that gives the whole IntFed movement a bad name. Your agenda will not be rested 'till the World Assembly as a whole reflects the nation and ideals of Quelesh itself; the Ambassador is disgusted by the idea of authoritarianism yet her own agenda is nothing but a fascist one.

[Mousebumples]

SUBMITTED! Delegates, please approve!

Updated repeal text, with minor revisions prior to submission, as per usual ...

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

REALIZES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity of WA member nations, which specifically include:

1. The limitations of Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
   
   
   1. Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.
   2. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.
2. There are no exceptions granted for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
   
   
   1. Some suspects may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime. This process may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
   2. Some crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may be especially complicated, which would require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed. Such a circumstance is outlawed under this resolution.
3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed as an intimidation tactic.

DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

SPECIFIES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal suspicion. As a result:

1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective. This 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment to these individuals.
2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours. This negates the quarantining efforts as, even with appropriate treatment, individuals will typically remain contagious after such a short period of time.

NOTES that Clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines for infections that are not at risk of causing a pandemic but do have the potential to cause widespread harm within a limited geographic area, even though such quarantines may be in the best interests of overall public health.

HOPES that an improved version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

[Moronist Decisions]

The Lion in Council met today, and decided to throw its full support behind this repeal. The current resolution is way too dangerous in ways that disrupt civil life.

One point that the Dean of the Faculty of Early Childhood Education, Moronist Normal University, and the Coordinator of Child Protective Services have informed me that with the passage of this act, they have been unable to take children into state custody when child abuse is suspected or when children are taken away from their homes. Specifically, since presumably neither children or their wayward parents are willing to sign to say they submit voluntarily to state custody of their children, we have had to in fact include, for children, "Allowing Oneself to be Abused" as a crime under Emergency Order 6/154 of the Assembly and Council of Morons in order to house such children (as they are, of course, confined by the authority of the state).

We would further note that we support in principle the replacement being prepared by Sanctaria.

[Quelesh]

You don't recognise the responsibility of the state to protect a person, through detention if necessary? Somehow this doesn't surprise me. Taking a drunk person off the street, bringing them back to the police station, and keeping them in a cell to sleep it off only for them to be able to leave at any time rather defeats the point of the exercise.

You want to forcibly lock people up, against their will, for longer than six hours, "for their own good"? And you accuse me of being fascist.

Further, the Ambassador's view on what is and isn't authoritarian is beginning to confuse me. The Ambassador admonishes us for the nerve to detain people do they're not a risk to their own safety or the safety of others, calling it authoritarian, yet implores us to criminalise any and all actions we have to to comply with her piece of drivel which somehow managed to pass through this august assembly. If my nation were to criminalise these actions, I'm positive the Ambassador would be lambasting us for restricting civil liberties. The Ambassador's credibility is continually in question.

I haven't "implored" any nation to criminalize anything in this debate. I implore every nation to stop locking people up for being drunk. I have, however, pointed out that, if nations absolutely insist on locking people up for longer than six hours just for being drunk, international law allows them to do so by criminalizing being drunk.

It is your stubborn, aggressive implication of that societal anarchism that gives the whole IntFed movement a bad name. Your agenda will not be rested 'till the World Assembly as a whole reflects the nation and ideals of Quelesh itself; the Ambassador is disgusted by the idea of authoritarianism yet her own agenda is nothing but a fascist one.

I am not an IntFed; I am an individual sovereigntist. I think that true sovereignty lies neither with member state governments nor with this Assembly, but within each person individually, and that the primary purpose of this Assembly is to protect individual sovereignty from infringement by member state governments and others. Protecting individual sovereignty is the opposite of a "fascist" agenda.

One point that the Dean of the Faculty of Early Childhood Education, Moronist Normal University, and the Coordinator of Child Protective Services have informed me that with the passage of this act, they have been unable to take children into state custody when child abuse is suspected or when children are taken away from their homes. Specifically, since presumably neither children or their wayward parents are willing to sign to say they submit voluntarily to state custody of their children, we have had to in fact include, for children, "Allowing Oneself to be Abused" as a crime under Emergency Order 6/154 of the Assembly and Council of Morons in order to house such children (as they are, of course, confined by the authority of the state).

You mean that your nation forcibly locks up children against their will simply for being the victim of a crime? What kind of backwards, fascist state is your government running?

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador