[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

by **Sanctaria** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:30 pm

Frankly, it was incredibly dishonest and petty of the author to not point out this mistake before your submission.

by **Ossitania** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:52 pm

Par for course for the Quelesian delegation then. I'm in favour of voluntary pull and resubmit, since this draft is stronger.

by **Damanucus** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:52 pm

This entire post is in OOC.

I know the mods are still considering it—and, of course, I'm not a mod—but I can already tell that one half of your GHR is, most likely, going to be ignored:

As far as I see it—and they may too—what you say in this paragraph is the entire reason for this debate. You say that this is fine; others (myself included) do not read it that way.

Now, the mods themselves may just say—and I'm predicting here, so don't quote me—that this part of the repeal is fine. (The other half Mouse has already admitted to.) And will leave it at that, probably with something else added in there, what I'm not going to predict at this point in time for fear of causing major insult. And they'll leave it at that. We'll return to debating that paragraph again, and so on and so forth.

To the mods: Yes, I probably just did the wrong thing here with this post; I'm fully aware of that. If it deserves a warning, feel free to warn me.

by **Mousebumples** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:37 pm

To be resubmitted shortly, with the time/math error corrected -

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:
Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize otherwise non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
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.
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.
Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.
There are no exceptions granted for Clauses 1 & 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
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.
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:
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.
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.

Last call for comments as I await the "removal" of the first submission ...

by **Mousebumples** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:11 am

RE-SUBMITTED!
Delegates, please (re)approve!

I've highlighted the (major) change below in red. I also rectified the "96 hour" reference by removing the hour count entirely. Whether it was 96 hours or 132 hours or 2 hours, I would have made the same objections.

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 risk the safety and prosperity of WA member nations; for example:

Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize otherwise non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.

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.
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.
Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.
There are no exceptions granted for Clauses 1 & 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”

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.
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:
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.
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.

Of course, there's a spacing error in the submitted text, but that appears to be standard for me now, as there's one in my repeal of DJP as well. *shrugs* That is not worth pulling the submission over.

by **Quelesh** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:53 am

The new "child protective services" language is interesting. Should the proposal come to vote with that language, I'll have more to say about it ("government-provided child protective services" are only limited if such services involve the child being detained). While this language is potentially misleading, I wouldn't say that it's illegal for this reason.

Ossitania wrote:Bullshit. You didn't respond because you can't.

Ossitania wrote: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?

Ossitania wrote: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.

My position on this issue is already clear, but, if it will please the Ossitanian ambassador: My response to both of those points is the same. The legislature and police forces of your nation should not get to decide unilaterally who is and who is not "in a fit state" to "stay safe," and then, on the basis of that unilateral decision, impose force on the innocent person to lock her up against her will. That's too much power for the police and the state apparatus to have.

That said, GAR190 does not actually prohibit your nation from imposing police force to lock up drunk people against their will, if it insists on doing so.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Sanctaria wrote:Frankly, it was incredibly dishonest and petty of the author to not point out this mistake before your submission.

OOC: I actually didn't notice the "96 hour" issue until shortly before I submitted the GHR. Originally the GHR was only going to include the CLARIFIES section issue, but when I was looking over the proposal again I noticed the 96 hour mistake. I did wait until the proposal reached quorum to submit the GHR, though, because I didn't want to bother the mods with this unnecessarily in case the proposal did not reach quorum.

by **Ossitania** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:22 am

Quelesh wrote:
Ossitania wrote:Bullshit. You didn't respond because you can't.

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.

My position on this issue is already clear, but, if it will please the Ossitanian ambassador: My response to both of those points is the same. The legislature and police forces of your nation should not get to decide unilaterally who is and who is not "in a fit state" to "stay safe," and then, on the basis of that unilateral decision, impose force on the innocent person to lock her up against her will. That's too much power for the police and the state apparatus to have.

That said, GAR190 does not actually prohibit your nation from imposing police force to lock up drunk people against their will, if it insists on doing so.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

The ambassador cannot be serious. It is too much power for the police to give someone who appears to be drunk a breathalyser test and put them in a cell for the night if they're concerned the person might get hurt if they're left on their own? Are you seriously saying, as a moral person, you would rather let the woman in my second point wander off into the night and potentially investigate her murder in the morning rather than detain her and take her to the barracks to sleep it off? If that's the case, then the ambassador has flat-out admitted that the lives of her citizens are secondary to her nation's twisted ideology and demonstrated that the Quelesian delegation are the last people who should be drafting legislation intended to protect people from abuse by the state. Neglect is a form of abuse too, Ms. Yadoru, in case you hadn't heard.

And I'm well aware that it doesn't prohibit my nation from detaining inebriated people who may be at risk of being harmed, but it limits my ability to do so and I'm not going to stand by having the lives of my citizens endangered due to the dangerous and extremist view on law and order with which the Quelesian delegation insists on poisoning the air in this chamber.

by **New Edom** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:50 am

On reading through the quick! repeal on behalf of the government of the Allied States and of the Region of Pardes I would like to say that I support the repeal. Nice and succinct.

- Princess Mara Obed, WA Ambassador

by **Auralia** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:25 pm

Support, mainly because I prefer Sanctaria's replacement to the current resolution.

by **Sanctaria** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:26 pm

Auralia wrote:Support, mainly because I prefer Sanctaria's replacement to the current resolution.

You're too kind.

by **Quadrimmina** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:34 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote:Support, mainly because I prefer Sanctaria's replacement to the current resolution.

You're too kind.

For my edification, what are the differences between the underlying resolution and the one being proposed by the Sanctarian delegation?

by **Auralia** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:36 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
You're too kind.

For my edification, what are the differences between the underlying resolution and the one being proposed by the Sanctarian delegation?

Mainly the removal of arbitrary time restrictions. I was sitting on the fence before on that issue, but I've decided that it's best for nations to decide what's best in that respect. After all, as long as the detained can appeal the legality of their detention, what's the issue?

by **Sanctaria** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:37 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
You're too kind.

For my edification, what are the differences between the underlying resolution and the one being proposed by the Sanctarian delegation?

The Ambassador could read my proposal and find that out...

by **Quadrimmina** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:52 pm

Sanctaria wrote:The Ambassador could read my proposal and find that out...

Having reviewed the proposal in question and met compliance with the "Read the Resolution Act", I can now firmly issue support of this repeal effort in favor of the Sanctarian delegation's proposal. The simplicity of the prospective replacement will provide greater flexibility for Quadrimmina's law enforcement.

by **Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:47 am

The Queleshians have once again acted as the International Community may well come to expect of them, their waiting for Quorum to be reached on this Repeal before questioning its legality is clearly an attempt at sabotage.

The Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs asserts that Quelesh is deliberately using the World Assembly as a means of extending control over sovereign states. The SOoFA advocates the proposal of a Condemnation against Quelesh for this flagrant abuse, in recognition of the fact that its blocking of this proposal through dishonesty and subterfuge has been to the detriment of the International Community.

This action has disgusted the PRS&FET, and will not go unremembered.

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs.

by **Zaklen** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:42 am

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:The Queleshians have once again acted as the International Community may well come to expect of them, their waiting for Quorum to be reached on this Repeal before questioning its legality is clearly an attempt at sabotage.

The Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs asserts that Quelesh is deliberately using the World Assembly as a means of extending control over sovereign states. The SOoFA advocates the proposal of a Condemnation against Quelesh for this flagrant abuse, in recognition of the fact that its blocking of this proposal through dishonesty and subterfuge has been to the detriment of the International Community.

This action has disgusted the PRS&FET, and will not go unremembered.

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs.

I would like to express my agreement with such a proceeding.

by **Merfurian** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:01 pm

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:The Queleshians have once again acted as the International Community may well come to expect of them, their waiting for Quorum to be reached on this Repeal before questioning its legality is clearly an attempt at sabotage.

The Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs asserts that Quelesh is deliberately using the World Assembly as a means of extending control over sovereign states. The SOoFA advocates the proposal of a Condemnation against Quelesh for this flagrant abuse, in recognition of the fact that its blocking of this proposal through dishonesty and subterfuge has been to the detriment of the International Community.

This action has disgusted the PRS&FET, and will not go unremembered.

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs.

I wish to concur with my Learned Friend. Precedent of this Chamber, the Rulebook, and of Secretariat Rulings has traditionally held that if a proposal has reached quorum - which this one has - then it is prima facie judged to be legal, and any legality challenges are therefore futile.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

by **Sanctaria** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:17 pm

Merfurian wrote:I wish to concur with my Learned Friend. Precedent of this Chamber, the Rulebook, and of Secretariat Rulings has traditionally held that if a proposal has reached quorum - which this one has - then it is prima facie judged to be legal, and any legality challenges are therefore futile.

Eh, what? Since when? Maybe you should actually check the rulebook or precedent or what have you before you open your mouth, Ambassador.

Any proposal, whether it has reached quorum or not, can have a legality challenge brought against it.

by **Auralia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:33 pm

Merfurian wrote:I wish to concur with my Learned Friend. Precedent of this Chamber, the Rulebook, and of Secretariat Rulings has traditionally held that if a proposal has reached quorum - which this one has - then it is prima facie judged to be legal, and any legality challenges are therefore futile.

"On International Trade", one of my proposals, was pulled due to legality issues even though it reached quorum.

by **Flibbleites** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:13 pm

Merfurian wrote:
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:The Queleshians have once again acted as the International Community may well come to expect of them, their waiting for Quorum to be reached on this Repeal before questioning its legality is clearly an attempt at sabotage.

The Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs asserts that Quelesh is deliberately using the World Assembly as a means of extending control over sovereign states. The SOoFA advocates the proposal of a Condemnation against Quelesh for this flagrant abuse, in recognition of the fact that its blocking of this proposal through dishonesty and subterfuge has been to the detriment of the International Community.

This action has disgusted the PRS&FET, and will not go unremembered.

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs.

I wish to concur with my Learned Friend. Precedent of this Chamber, the Rulebook, and of Secretariat Rulings has traditionally held that if a proposal has reached quorum - which this one has - then it is prima facie judged to be legal, and any legality challenges are therefore futile.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

I believe you have confused "quorum" status with "at vote" status.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

by **Zaklen** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:22 pm

Regardless, it is completely ridiculous that the Queleshian ambassador would withhold the illegality issue until after the repeal had reached quorum. This was clearly a stall tactic and a successful attempt at sabotage.

by **Quadrimmina** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:48 pm

Zaklen wrote:Regardless, it is completely ridiculous that the Queleshian ambassador would withhold the illegality issue until after the repeal had reached quorum. This was clearly a stall tactic and a successful attempt at sabotage.

Now, now, the Queleshian ambassador has every right to promote their proposal. This debate is not one in which we discuss any one particular political strategy, but one in which we discuss the merits of the resolution in question. In this case, the proposal's merits are agreeable, and the resolution's prospective replacement appears to be a more suitable match for international law. This is the standard by which we must agree upon this repeal. Not to do so with attacks on delegates to this august body.

by **Mousebumples** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:31 am

Zaklen wrote:Regardless, it is completely ridiculous that the Queleshian ambassador would withhold the illegality issue until after the repeal had reached quorum. This was clearly a stall tactic and a successful attempt at sabotage.

I would hardly say "successful." The proposal is back at quorum now - which reminds me, I need to edit the OP to reflect that - and, in my opinion, is even stronger than it was before. (The original submission did not have the clause regarding Child Protective Services, which - if I'm recalling previous debates in these chambers correctly - is not a concern for the Queleshian government as they have a non-traditional ... method of child-rearing which involves giving young individuals autonomy at a very young age.)

Yes, I took down the original submission. Yes, I would have preferred to have know about the math/number error in advance of submission. However, in the end, the repeal draft is stronger than ever, which can only be a good thing, correct?

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

by **Vagabundas** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:58 pm

OMG !!!! Why I have supported such Act!

:palm:

Willing to destroy this Bill. Yours,

by **Quelesh** » Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:34 pm

This is an OOC post:

It's not entirely clear from reading the thread, but it seems that the author voluntarily withdrew the earlier proposal to fix the first issue brought up in the earlier GHR, and that the legality of the misinterpretation of the CLARIFIES section has not actually been decided by the mods. Therefore, I've submitted another GHR on that issue (and hopefully I'm not wrong about the issue not having already been decided).

I previously submitted a GHR about the earlier incarnation of the "Repeal 'Habeas Corpus Act'" proposal, bringing up two potential Honest Mistake legality issues: a time limit inaccuracy and misinterpretation regarding the word "prohibiting." That proposal was removed, and it has since been resubmitted with the first issue resolved but the second issue unresolved.

I can't be sure, but from reading the forum thread about the proposal, it seems that the author voluntarily removed the earlier incarnation to fix the first issue, and that the legality of the second issue hasn't actually been decided, which is why I'm submitting this new request about the second proposal. If I'm wrong and this issue has already been decided, then I apologize for bothering you with it again.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1334891904

The 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.

Forthis reason, the proposal attempts to repeal GAR190 for something 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 this misrepresentation can be corrected.

Thank you for your time in considering my request.

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:The Queleshians have once again acted as the International Community may well come to expect of them, their waiting for Quorum to be reached on this Repeal before questioning its legality is clearly an attempt at sabotage.

As I've said before, I waited until the proposal reached quorum to submit the GHR because it was possible that the proposal would fail to reach quorum on its own, and I didn't want to bother the moderators unnecessarily in case the proposal wouldn't have reached quorum anyway.

[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

Who is online