[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

[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.

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.

As I've already said, the Ambassador obviously has no comprehension of the notion of safety. The Ambassador has no comprehension of state responsibility either. My State would prefer an extremely inebriated person remain under police supervision rather than roaming around the streets putting themselves in danger.

My State looks out for its citizens while Quelesh obviously advocates that their vulnerable citizens be left fend for themselves. It is disheartening that Quelesh then has the nerve to judge other nations as beneath them.

I continue to be wary of Quelesh's extreme disregard for their own citizens, and the citizens of other nations in the World Assembly. I'm further concerned at the fascist agenda which her Ambassador is trying to push on the various nations in this Assembly. That aside, no Ambassador should have an agenda, regardless of its content.

I welcome this appeal and I, in my capacity as a WA Delegate, approve the proposal.

[AverageBob]

Not sure alternatives offered are clear enough for me to vote against existing Act. We must protect ourselves from potential government abuse of rules. If these time limits seem to short then creativity needed to deal with the problem. Rules are made to be broken.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Your interpretation is flawed.

The fact that this legislation is open to wide interpretation makes the Habeas Corpus Act flawed. This is law. If you want an example, then how about this "A sapient being may not unlawfully kill another sapient being with malice aforethought, except in certain circumstance."

The resolution explicitly disallows your interpretation of it.

Again, you point out the key flaw, this resolution is open to very wide misunderstanding and misconception, making it worthless as legislature.

Law ought be clear, concise, and open to as little misinterpretation as possible. The current act simply isn't. Whilst I realise the Queleshian ambassador may be overcompensating for the fanatically blunt Double Jepoardy Prohibition, this well-meant thought has paved the way for two heartstring-twanging rags to find their way into international law.

Frankly, if the Queleshian ambassador would stop attempting to counterargue feedback and instead adapt proposals for clarity based on the interpretation of other WA representatives, then these actively harmful acts would have been something to be proud of, and as a side-benefit, the nations that barely skimread the proposal before voting would have any idea what they're voting on, rather than going on spindoctoring alone!

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs.

[Ossitania]

At this point, I would like to apologise publicly for my support of the resolution to be repealed. Clearly, I didn't read it properly and should have railed against it rather than thrown my support behind the Quelesian delegation. I shall endeavour to make sure it doesn't happen again. The delegation from Ossitania wholeheartedly approves this repeal.

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.

I must say, I adore how you instantly paint the drunkard as the innocent victim of your story and the authority figure as the domineering villain. If a drunk person is not in a fit state to defend themselves against attack by the big bad policemen, what makes you think they're in a fit state to decide whether they're sober enough to stay safe if they leave?

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.

Let's say you're a cop on patrol and you spot a heavily inebriated woman walking alone in a dangerous part of town. You approach her to see if she's alright. She's got no concept of where she is, has no ID and doesn't remember where she is. You're afraid she'll get hurt if you leave her where she is, so you offer to take her to the police station, but she says she doesn't want to go. What are you, as someone who's supposed to protect the people of your country, supposed to do in that situation? Let her walk away and then investigate her murder in the morning? Or take her to the police station until she sobers, whether she agrees or not? Though I won't be surprised if the radical libertarian Quelesian delegation chooses the former option, I'm sure most reasonable nations will realise that if someone is clearly not in a fit state to defend themselves (as noted by the honourable lady from Quelesh), then it is the duty of the state to defend them.

Also, your workaround is totally inadequate. Have you considered, perhaps, that our nations might not want to treat these people as criminals, since they've done nothing wrong, that we don't want them to get a criminal record for simply going overboard with the drink once or twice? There need not be a dichotomy between "endanger the lives of citizens" and "treat citizens like criminals when they've done nothing wrong", yet the Quelesian delegation is insisting on forcing one to exist.

[Quelesh]

As I've already said, the Ambassador obviously has no comprehension of the notion of safety.

Individual rights trump safety. The right to be free from the imposition of force trumps any perceived need the State may have to impose force "for the citizens' own good."

Again, you point out the key flaw, this resolution is open to very wide misunderstanding and misconception, making it worthless as legislature.

The misunderstanding is not caused by the resolution, but merely by the desire of a small number of certain ambassadors to repeal the resolution at any cost. GAR190 says "this resolution cannot be interpreted as doing X," and yet the repeal asserts "GAR190 does X."

Have you considered, perhaps, that our nations might not want to treat these people as criminals, since they've done nothing wrong, that we don't want them to get a criminal record for simply going overboard with the drink once or twice?

Yes, they've done nothing wrong, which is why they shouldn't be forcibly locked up against their will in the first place.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

As I've already said, the Ambassador obviously has no comprehension of the notion of safety.

Individual rights trump safety.

This uninformed and ignored statement worries me. The Ambassador now advocates anarchy; people should be allowed run riot, committing various harmful acts without the need to consider or even suffer the consequences. I assume that this Ambassador would allow protesters harass both physically and mentally those they have a problem with just because there is a right to protest.

There you have it, Ambassadors. The nation of Quelesh admits to putting the safety and security of its citizens at risk in order to pursue a fascist agenda. This same agenda is what the Ambassador wishes the entire World Assembly to follow. The Ambassador's moral compass is skewed and this Assembly needs to repeal this piece of legislation which is just acting as a staging point for her disturbing beliefs.

For shame, Ambassador. For shame. The lives and safety of your citizens should and must be your nation's utmost concern.

[Linux and the X]

The Sanctarian ambassador appears to be having a psychotic breakdown. Advocating anarchy is now somehow promoting fascism.

[Sanctaria]

The Sanctarian ambassador appears to be having a psychotic breakdown. Advocating anarchy is now somehow promoting fascism.

No, silly. I pointed out earlier in the debate how the Queleshian Ambassador is pursuing a fascist agenda. Keep up!

The Ambassador is now advocating anarchy in conjunction with her aforementioned agenda. The combination of the two is indeed strange, hence why I am questioning her credibility. She seems to be jumping between political stances in order to defend her resolution.

[Quelesh]

Individual rights trump safety.

This uninformed and ignored statement worries me. The Ambassador now advocates anarchy; people should be allowed run riot, committing various harmful acts without the need to consider or even suffer the consequences. I assume that this Ambassador would allow protesters harass both physically and mentally those they have a problem with just because there is a right to protest.

There you have it, Ambassadors. The nation of Quelesh admits to putting the safety and security of its citizens at risk in order to pursue a fascist agenda. This same agenda is what the Ambassador wishes the entire World Assembly to follow. The Ambassador's moral compass is skewed and this Assembly needs to repeal this piece of legislation which is just acting as a staging point for her disturbing beliefs.

For shame, Ambassador. For shame. The lives and safety of your citizens should and must be your nation's utmost concern.

Did the caretakers of the English language recently redefine the antonyms "social libertarianism" and "fascism" such that they are now synonyms? Why didn't I get a memo about this?

We're not talking about locking up people who are harming or violating the rights of others. We're talking about locking up drunk people. For being drunk and not hurting anyone. I didn't know that "not locking up drunk people just for being drunk" was a component of fascism, much less a necessary and sufficient condition of fascism.

I advocate individual sovereignty for every person in the world, and, in this context, every person under World Assembly jurisdiction. That's the opposite of fascism.

Regardless, you and a limited number of other ambassadors are blowing this issue out of proportion, because GAR190 does not actually prohibit your nation from locking up drunk people just for being drunk, if it absolutely insists on doing so.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

Did the caretakers of the English language recently redefine the antonyms "social libertarianism" and "fascism" such that they are now synonyms? Why didn't I get a memo about this?

The Ambassador is quite aware that her mission to impose Queleshian beliefs and practices on ever member nation of the World Assembly through legislation is what I am referring to when I use the term "fascist". Quite aware.

[Quelesh]

Did the caretakers of the English language recently redefine the antonyms "social libertarianism" and "fascism" such that they are now synonyms? Why didn't I get a memo about this?

The Ambassador is quite aware that her mission to impose Queleshian beliefs and practices on ever member nation of the World Assembly through legislation is what I am referring to when I use the term "fascist". Quite aware.

In that case, you are egregiously abusing the English language by so flagrantly misusing that word. Protecting individuals under WA jurisdiction from oppression by authoritarian member state governments is not fascism; it is protecting people from fascism.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

The Ambassador is quite aware that her mission to impose Queleshian beliefs and practices on ever member nation of the World Assembly through legislation is what I am referring to when I use the term "fascist". Quite aware.

In that case, you are egregiously abusing the English language by so flagrantly misusing that word. Protecting individuals under WA jurisdiction from oppression by authoritarian member state governments is not fascism; it is protecting people from fascism.

I think not, Ambassador. In your quest for installing Queleshian beliefs and practices, you are casually, and intentionally, dismissing other, valid cultural beliefs from any other Ambassador by saying they are "authoritarian". That casual disregard for other nations' cultures and concerns resembles an extreme authoritarian streak in and of itself.

Alcohol, Ambassador, is a depressant. The belief isn't that those under the influence would harm other people, it's the worry that they may harm themselves. Of course, the Ambassador's warped beliefs on individual rights is that the State should let this person harm themselves and stand back and abdicate its responsibility to protect its citizens from harm.

[Ossitania]

Have you considered, perhaps, that our nations might not want to treat these people as criminals, since they've done nothing wrong, that we don't want them to get a criminal record for simply going overboard with the drink once or twice?

Yes, they've done nothing wrong, which is why they shouldn't be forcibly locked up against their will in the first place.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

No. I'm tired of this pathetic little habit that the Quelesian ambassador has of quote mining a section of what other ambassadors have said out of context, responding to the piece of out-of-context text and then trying to act like she's argued against the entire point that they made. Respond to all of the points I made or admit that you are unable to, but don't come in here and insult my intelligence with childish debating tactics that would make a high school student blush in embarrassment. If you're not prepared to answer the difficult questions, then at least get someone else to do it, we might yet have some productive debate on this topic.

[Merfurian]

We're not talking about locking up people who are harming or violating the rights of others. We're talking about locking up drunk people. For being drunk and not hurting anyone. I didn't know that "not locking up drunk people just for being drunk" was a component of fascism, much less a necessary and sufficient condition of fascism.

I advocate individual sovereignty for every person in the world, and, in this context, every person under World Assembly jurisdiction. That's the opposite of fascism.

Regardless, you and a limited number of other ambassadors are blowing this issue out of proportion, because GAR190 does not actually prohibit your nation from locking up drunk people just for being drunk, if it absolutely insists on doing so.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Yet, if the ambassador had actually undertaken the logical process called thinking, which I fear that she has forgotten how to do, being as she does not even have half a functioning brain, then she would have realised that it is not about locking up drunks because they are/not currently - at this instant causing trouble. Instead, drunks and others of their ilk are locked up in anticipation of possible violence or disorder. It is better to exercise precaution, rather than have a violent drunkard causing terror to the good citizens of a certain place.

If the ambassador still does not believe that it is possible to lock drunkards up in anticipation of violence or disorder, then her state is anarchist and therefore does not deserve recognition. It also shows that the ambassador is plainly uneducated, and does not deserve to represent a turnip - let alone a large and unstable nation like Quelesh - at this Assembly.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

[Parti Ouvrier]

We do not accept MB's arguments

Against

Darren Cahil

[Sanctaria]

We do not accept MB's arguments

Care to expand?

[Quelesh]

In that case, you are egregiously abusing the English language by so flagrantly misusing that word. Protecting individuals under WA jurisdiction from oppression by authoritarian member state governments is not fascism; it is protecting people from fascism.

I think not, Ambassador. In your quest for installing Queleshian beliefs and practices, you are casually, and intentionally, dismissing other, valid cultural beliefs from any other Ambassador by saying they are "authoritarian". That casual disregard for other nations' cultures and concerns resembles an extreme authoritarian streak in and of itself.

Alcohol, Ambassador, is a depressant. The belief isn't that those under the influence would harm other people, it's the worry that they may harm themselves. Of course, the Ambassador's warped beliefs on individual rights is that the State should let this person harm themselves and stand back and abdicate its responsibility to protect its citizens from harm.

If a culture's beliefs demand the oppression of people, then I proudly dismiss those cultural beliefs and I openly seek to impede them. Some cultural beliefs demand the practice of torture, or rape, or genocide, or female genital mutilation, or a host of other practices which this Assembly has prohibited. Some cultural beliefs demand that people should not have freedom of expression, or the right to marry a partner of the same sex, and yet this Assembly has prohibited member states from restricting these practices. One of the primary purposes of this Assembly is to prevent member state governments from enforcing harmful cultural beliefs.

I don't care about "cultural beliefs;" I care about people's rights.

Yes, they've done nothing wrong, which is why they shouldn't be forcibly locked up against their will in the first place.

No. I'm tired of this pathetic little habit that the Quelesian ambassador has of quote mining a section of what other ambassadors have said out of context, responding to the piece of out-of-context text and then trying to act like she's argued against the entire point that they made. Respond to all of the points I made or admit that you are unable to, but don't come in here and insult my intelligence with childish debating tactics that would make a high school student blush in embarrassment. If you're not prepared to answer the difficult questions, then at least get someone else to do it, we might yet have some productive debate on this topic.

I did not pretend to be responding to every point you made previously. I choose to not respond to certain points for various reasons: because they are irrelevant to me, or because I have already responded to them and do not feel the need to repeat myself. The fact remains that people who have done nothing wrong should not be forcibly locked up against their will.

We're not talking about locking up people who are harming or violating the rights of others. We're talking about locking up drunk people. For being drunk and not hurting anyone. I didn't know that "not locking up drunk people just for being drunk" was a component of fascism, much less a necessary and sufficient condition of fascism.

I advocate individual sovereignty for every person in the world, and, in this context, every person under World Assembly jurisdiction. That's the opposite of fascism.

Regardless, you and a limited number of other ambassadors are blowing this issue out of proportion, because GAR190 does not actually prohibit your nation from locking up drunk people just for being drunk, if it absolutely insists on doing so.

Yet, if the ambassador had actually undertaken the logical process called thinking, which I fear that she has forgotten how to do, being as she does not even have half a functioning brain, then she would have realised that it is not about locking up drunks because they are/not currently - at this instant causing trouble. Instead, drunks and others of their ilk are locked up in anticipation of possible violence or disorder. It is better to exercise precaution, rather than have a violent drunkard causing terror to the good citizens of a certain place.

If the ambassador still does not believe that it is possible to lock drunkards up in anticipation of violence or disorder, then her state is anarchist and therefore does not deserve recognition. It also shows that the ambassador is plainly uneducated, and does not deserve to represent a turnip - let alone a large and unstable nation like Quelesh - at this Assembly.

I appreciate the insults, especially from a nation that is not even a member of this Assembly. That said, I will respond by saying that forcibly locking up people "in anticipation of possible violence or disorder" is immoral and unjust and should not be done, especially in the absence of strong individualized evidence that the person in question is about to become violent or disorderly. (Being drunk, in itself, does not constitute such evidence.)

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

The Queleshian Ambassador has a particular talent for ignoring the more important points of her opponents' arguments, I'll grant her that.

I'm quite happy this proposal has reached Quorum.

[Quelesh]

OOC: By the way, GHR submitted. Here is the text of the GHR I submitted:

I think that the submitted proposal "Repeal 'Habeas Corpus Act'" is illegal due to Honest Mistake.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1334635985

There are two reasons why I think that this proposal is illegal. The first is because of a factual error in clause (2)(a). That clause of the repeal states that the maximum amount of time allowed by GAR190 to detain a person on suspicion of a crime prior to charging her with that crime is 96 hours, but this is incorrect.

Clause 2 of GAR190 generally allows for 36 hours of pre-charge detention, but states that time during which the authorities responsible for charging the person with a crime are unavailable to do so may be added to the 36-hour time limit, up to a maximum of 96 additional hours. This makes the maximum time limit for pre-charge detention of suspects 132 hours (provided that the authorites responsible for charging the suspect with the crime are unavailable to do so for at least 96 of those hours).

Clause (2)(a) of the repeal misrepresents the target resolution by erroneously stating that the maximum time limit for pre-charge detention of suspects is 96 hours.

The second reason that I think the repeal is illegal is because of the SPECIFIES section, and its subclauses. This section of the repeal claims that involuntary psychiatric commitment, medical quarantines, etc., are limited by clause 1 of GAR190 to a maximum of six hours in any seven-day period, despite the language in the CLARIFIES section of the target resolution. This is simply not the case.

The CLARIFIES section of GAR190 states that nothing in that resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, necessary medical quarantines, etc. The repeal argues that the word "prohibiting" in that section of GAR190 means that clause 1 of the target resolution can, and must, be interpreted as limiting such activities, but this is logically inconsistent.

If clause 1 of GAR190 limits involuntary psychiatric commitment to a maximum of six hours in every 168-hour period, then it, by logical extension, prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment during the remaining 168 hours. It is impossible for clause 1 to limit involuntary psychiatric commitment to six out of every 168 hours without prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment for 162 out of 168 hours, and the target resolution explicitly states that nothing in it can be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment.

The repeal's argument is that, six hours after a member state has locked someone up for the purpose of involuntary psychiatric commitment, clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits the continued involuntary psychiatric commitment of that person for the next 162 hours, but this is impossible, because nothing in GAR190 shall be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment.

For the two reasons above, the proposal attempts to repeal GAR190 for things that GAR190 does not do, and I think it is therefore illegal due to Honest Mistake. I request that the proposal be removed from the proposal list so that these misrepresentations can be corrected.

Thank you for your time in considering my request.

[Merfurian]

OOC: By the way, GHR submitted. Here is the text of the GHR I submitted:

I think that the submitted proposal "Repeal 'Habeas Corpus Act'" is illegal due to Honest Mistake.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1334635985

There are two reasons why I think that this proposal is illegal. The first is because of a factual error in clause (2)(a). That clause of the repeal states that the maximum amount of time allowed by GAR190 to detain a person on suspicion of a crime prior to charging her with that crime is 96 hours, but this is incorrect.

Clause 2 of GAR190 generally allows for 36 hours of pre-charge detention, but states that time during which the authorities responsible for charging the person with a crime are unavailable to do so may be added to the 36-hour time limit, up to a maximum of 96 additional hours. This makes the maximum time limit for pre-charge detention of suspects 132 hours (provided that the authorites responsible for charging the suspect with the crime are unavailable to do so for at least 96 of those hours).

Clause (2)(a) of the repeal misrepresents the target resolution by erroneously stating that the maximum time limit for pre-charge detention of suspects is 96 hours.

The second reason that I think the repeal is illegal is because of the SPECIFIES section, and its subclauses. This section of the repeal claims that involuntary psychiatric commitment, medical quarantines, etc., are limited by clause 1 of GAR190 to a maximum of six hours in any seven-day period, despite the language in the CLARIFIES section of the target resolution. This is simply not the case.

The CLARIFIES section of GAR190 states that nothing in that resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, necessary medical quarantines, etc. The repeal argues that the word "prohibiting" in that section of GAR190 means that clause 1 of the target resolution can, and must, be interpreted as limiting such activities, but this is logically inconsistent.

If clause 1 of GAR190 limits involuntary psychiatric commitment to a maximum of six hours in every 168-hour period, then it, by logical extension, prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment during the remaining 168 hours. It is impossible for clause 1 to limit involuntary psychiatric commitment to six out of every 168 hours without prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment for 162 out of 168 hours, and the target resolution explicitly states that nothing in it can be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment.

The repeal's argument is that, six hours after a member state has locked someone up for the purpose of involuntary psychiatric commitment, clause 1 of GAR190 prohibits the continued involuntary psychiatric commitment of that person for the next 162 hours, but this is impossible, because nothing in GAR190 shall be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment.

For the two reasons above, the proposal attempts to repeal GAR190 for things that GAR190 does not do, and I think it is therefore illegal due to Honest Mistake. I request that the proposal be removed from the proposal list so that these misrepresentations can be corrected.

Thank you for your time in considering my request.

That's not even GHR material - although I will draft a request for a ruling on the issue.

[Sanctaria]

That's not even GHR material - although I will draft a request for a ruling on the issue.

Err... yes it is.

[Southern Patriots]

I am in full support of this repeal.

[Ossitania]

No. I'm tired of this pathetic little habit that the Quelesian ambassador has of quote mining a section of what other ambassadors have said out of context, responding to the piece of out-of-context text and then trying to act like she's argued against the entire point that they made. Respond to all of the points I made or admit that you are unable to, but don't come in here and insult my intelligence with childish debating tactics that would make a high school student blush in embarrassment. If you're not prepared to answer the difficult questions, then at least get someone else to do it, we might yet have some productive debate on this topic.

I did not pretend to be responding to every point you made previously. I choose to not respond to certain points for various reasons: because they are irrelevant to me, or because I have already responded to them and do not feel the need to repeat myself. The fact remains that people who have done nothing wrong should not be forcibly locked up against their will.

Bullshit. You didn't respond because you can't.

If a drunk person is not in a fit state to defend themselves against attack by the big bad policemen, what makes you think they're in a fit state to decide whether they're sober enough to stay safe if they leave?

Let's say you're a cop on patrol and you spot a heavily inebriated woman walking alone in a dangerous part of town. You approach her to see if she's alright. She's got no concept of where she is, has no ID and doesn't remember where she is. You're afraid she'll get hurt if you leave her where she is, so you offer to take her to the police station, but she says she doesn't want to go. What are you, as someone who's supposed to protect the people of your country, supposed to do in that situation? Let her walk away and then investigate her murder in the morning? Or take her to the police station until she sobers, whether she agrees or not? Though I won't be surprised if the radical libertarian Quelesian delegation chooses the former option, I'm sure most reasonable nations will realise that if someone is clearly not in a fit state to defend themselves (as noted by the honourable lady from Quelesh), then it is the duty of the state to defend them.

Respond to these points or admit that you can't, either way I'll be satisfied, but don't give me crap about not being relevant to you or having already been responded to.

[Mousebumples]

To be honest, I'm surprised that you hadn't already submitted a GHR on this. And I will admit that I misread the clause in question here. I had thought it was a new maximum (EXTENDED TIME) of 96 total hours. Not 96 ADDITIONAL hours. This one would probably count as an honest mistake. However, the argument in question is still valid. If the res ends up being pulled on these grounds, it will be resubmitted with the number "96" changed to "132."

So far as your other argument, I suppose I could re-answer it, but we've been over this time and TIME again. Please see these posts for a response: one two three four five

Anyhow, I've consulted with the mods and it appears that they are still considering the GHR filed by Quelesh but have yet to make a decision. Of course, I could voluntarily pull it on the above grounds (re: the hour issue) and resubmit. This would also give me the opportunity to make the draft stronger yet, but including a clause regarding child protection that was not included in the current draft. (Mostly because The Lion of Moronist Decisions only pointed out the issue after submission.)

Potential new repeal text:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

AIMS to protect individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

REALIZES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may risk the safety and prosperity of WA member nations; for example:

1. Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize otherwise non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
   
   1. Government-provided child protective services would be severely limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period, due to shortcomings in GAR#19, Child Protection Act, in combination with GAR#190. This limit would apply to, for example, children who are removed from their homes due to suspicions of parental/guardian abuse and to children who are orphaned with no legal guardian.
   2. 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.
   3. 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 & 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 time allowed.
   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.

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.

Character count: 3360, woo!

Thoughts? Should I leave it be since it's well past quorum? Or, since there's a long enough queue at this point ANYHOW, should I pull and resubmit?

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

[Knootoss]

((Lets see what the mods do. It'll give you a longer list of people to telegram if it does get pulled on this lame technicality.))