NationStates

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 7:50 am**

This would be the second repeal that I've had drafted for, again, literally years.

Repeal "Multilateral Prosecution Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #99 | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Argument: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

VALUES consistency and fair treatment of all individuals within the justice system of all WA member nations.

UNDERSTANDS that the resolution in question creates a separate process and set of protocols for trying stateless individuals outside of the typical legal channels within WA member nations, which results in the following issues:
Individuals may become stateless by choice, should they prefer to take their risks at trial through this less used process;
Stateless individuals may elect to declare a nationality simply to avoid the process laid out in this resolution; and
The resolution implies that the lives and/or rights of stateless individuals are valued differently than those who have a stated nationality, which is not something that the World Assembly should endorse within its resolutions.
RECOMMENDS that the WA eliminate the possibility for unequal treatment of stateless individuals.

BELIEVES that the this resolution establishes a "separate but equal" process, which is inherently unfair and minimizes the humanity and rights that should be accorded to stateless individuals.

REALIZES that since the passage of this resolution, the World Assembly has worked to ensure that the following resolutions regarding due process have been clarified to ensure that the details of the following resolutions affect all individuals, including those who are stateless.
GAR #37, Fairness in Criminal Trials,
GAR #194, Treatment of Inmates,
GAR#198, Preventing Multiple Trials,
GAR#201, Habeas Corpus, and
GAR#202, Convict Appellate Rights.
ACKNOWLEDGES that the standards provided by the aforementioned pieces of legislation provide greater consistency in the treatment of all individuals whether they are stateless or have declared a nationality, rendering the "protections" provided by this resolution to be unnecessary and thereby merit a repeal.

REPEALS GAR#99, "Multilateral Prosecution Act."

Repeal "Multilateral Prosecution Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #99 | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Argument: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the efforts made by this resolution to ensure that certain rights are extended to stateless individuals when captured by a joint effort of multiple WA member nations.

BELIEVES that the WA should ensure that due process and detainment rights should be equal among those that are citizens and legal residents of a given nation and with those that are stateless individuals.

RECOGNIZES that this resolution does nothing to provide protection for stateless individuals who are captured by a single WA member nation.

UNDERSTANDS that the resolution in question creates a separate process and set of protocols for trying stateless individuals outside of the typical legal channels within WA member nations, which results in the following issues:
Individuals may become stateless by choice, should they prefer to take their risks at trial through this less used process;
Stateless individuals may elect to declare a nationality simply to avoid the ICMP process; and
The resolution implies that the lives and/or rights of stateless individuals are valued differently than those who have a stated nationality, which is not something that the World Assembly should endorse within its resolutions.
REALIZES that while the resolution in question establishes the ICMP as a Courthouse, it never establishes any sort of committee or organization to coordinate the actions or functions of aforementioned courthouse. This leads to the Courthouse, an inanimate object, being charged with the following duties:
Clause 3: to protect the detainee from outside forces, ensure their continued detainment, and provide them with the freedoms and rights established by WA law;
Clause 4: to try accused stateless detainees;
Clause 5: to develop a proper arrangement for trying the accused;
Clause 6: to determine appropriate sentences;
Clause 7: to observe the use of facilities used for said sentences; and
Clause 8: to use discretion to determine appropriate reimbursement for those found innocent of some or all of their charged crimes.
WONDERS why the resolution in question does not properly acknowledge the lack of efficacy of repealed legislation as Section 5(b) states: "Shall reflect the legal and judicial systems that the World Assembly promotes for member nations in its future, and past regulations", which could result in the ICMP continuing to follow the direction of resolutions that were repealed with good reason.

DECLARES the importance of assuring the establishment of the rights of due process and detainment for stateless individuals.

HOPES for an appropriate piece of replacement legislation that would provide for equality in rights awarded to ALL individuals within WA member nations, be they stateless or not.

REPEALS GAR#99, "Multilateral Prosecution Act."

Constructive comments are welcome, to help better steer this repeal draft in the most optimal direction.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 8:06 am**

Mousebumples wrote:WONDERS why the resolution in question does not properly acknowledge the lack of efficacy of repealed legislation as Section 5(b) states: "Shall reflect the legal and judicial systems that the World Assembly promotes for member nations in its future, and past regulations", which could result in the ICMP continuing to follow the direction of resolutions that were repealed with good reason.

"This is a ridiculous interpretation. Such a whole specious argument does an otherwise reasonably compelling repeal no favours at all.

DECLARES the importance of assuring the establishment of the rights of due process and detainment for stateless individuals.

"For my money, 'Declares' is too strong for a repeal. No problem with the 'hopes' clause, but 'declares' is an actual WA statement of intent, that could then never be repealed. I'd argue this is legislating in a repeal, and needs to be softened to non-declarative verb.

HOPES for an appropriate piece of replacement legislation that would provide for equality in rights awarded to ALL individuals within WA member nations, be they stateless or not.

"Once this replacement is ready, let us know! We'll review it compared to the original resolution and base the decision to repeal or not on that. Until then, though, this feels premature."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 10:40 am**

Mousebumples wrote:REALIZES that while the resolution in question establishes the ICMP as a Courthouse, it never establishes any sort of committee or organization to coordinate the actions or functions of aforementioned courthouse. This leads to the Courthouse, an inanimate object, being charged with the following duties:
Clause 3: to protect the detainee from outside forces, ensure their continued detainment, and provide them with the freedoms and rights established by WA law;
Clause 4: to try accused stateless detainees;
Clause 5: to develop a proper arrangement for trying the accused;
Clause 6: to determine appropriate sentences;
Clause 7: to observe the use of facilities used for said sentences; and
Clause 8: to use discretion to determine appropriate reimbursement for those found innocent of some or all of their charged crimes.

Has the General Assembly degraded so much that its members honestly believe that the resolution explicitly told a physical building -- a pile of wood and stone -- to carry out the resolution's mandate? It's insulting that this argument makes up the majority of the repeal's arguments. If this was submitted, I would file a GHR to get it taken down under the Honest Mistakes rule.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 10:43 am**

How else would you interpret the clause, other than there being a particular Courthouse?

2. Requires that all stateless detainees captured by a multilateral effort under the provisions of WA legislation must be transported safely to the International Courthouse for Multilateral Prosecution (ICMP)

The law does what the law says, Dr. Castro.

Prof. Crick
Deputy to the Lion

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 10:53 am**

The ICMP is a committee. It was treated as committee when the mods gave a lengthy legality ruling on it. It was a committee during the debate. It was a committee when it was at vote. It's a dumb argument, a perfect example of a repeal violating the Honest Mistakes rule.

Frankly, a moderator ought to know better. If a new player had come and made the same argument, they would be vilified.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 11:43 am**

Moronist Decisions wrote:How else would you interpret the clause, other than there being a particular Courthouse?

2. Requires that all stateless detainees captured by a multilateral effort under the provisions of WA legislation must be transported safely to the International Courthouse for Multilateral Prosecution (ICMP)

The law does what the law says, Dr. Castro.

Prof. Crick
Deputy to the Lion

"I can only assume that her Excellency of Moronist Decisions has been kidnapped and has been replaced by some impostor from a race of aliens that cannot read text except for in the most literal and nonsensical way possible. So, your Excellency - if that is your real name - I'm led to believe that this nefarious race of aliens masquerading as Professor Crick has some vendetta against her, because I know an honorable and respectable diplomat like Professor Crick would never suggest that having the term 'courthouse' in the name of a committee precludes it from also being a committee. And I'm sure she would never justify her reasoning with some vapid platitude like 'the law does what the law says.' As such, I've sent my best coffee boy in search of the most noble professor to put an end to this sham and restore her good name."

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 1:07 pm**

Here's what I don't get about this argument. I agree that the ICMP was set up as a committee. However, what I am not quite getting is whether the "Courthouse" is merely part of the title to the committee, or whether it means that this committee is, in fact, responsible for a courthouse.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 1:28 pm**

You understand exactly what the resolution does, MD. Don't stoop to that level. It insults your own intelligence.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 2:54 pm**

Moronist Decisions wrote:Here's what I don't get about this argument. I agree that the ICMP was set up as a committee. However, what I am not quite getting is whether the "Courthouse" is merely part of the title to the committee, or whether it means that this committee is, in fact, responsible for a courthouse.

OOC: I assume this is out of character, because you didn't indicate otherwise. Sorry if I'm mistaken. :blush:

Anyway, if you read the entire text of GAR#99, it's so very clearly a committee with both quasi-legislative a quasi-judicial functions. To interpret the resolution as ordering an actual building to formulate policy is just so absurd I can't even express my confoundment in words. Whether or not the committee has its own "courthouse" is not necessarily relevant, although for the sake of ending this entire discussion, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that a committee can both act as an independent agency of the World Assembly while at the same time having its own building, with which it may use to fulfill its duties.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2014 3:13 pm**

"Your Excellency, Sciongrad has always held the esteemed delegation of Mousebumples in the highest regard, although several aspects of this proposal are very concerning to us."

Mousebumples wrote:REALIZES that while the resolution in question establishes the ICMP as a Courthouse, it never establishes any sort of committee or organization to coordinate the actions or functions of aforementioned courthouse. This leads to the Courthouse, an inanimate object, being charged with the following duties:

"This is just so wrong. So, so, so wrong. This is wronger than wrong. This is more wrong than people who put milk in their bowl before cereal. This is either cleverly devised satire poking fun at the rampant literalism of the General Assembly or an argument that needs to be removed immediately. I mean, when crafting a repeal, it's good to create as many arguments as you can and see which ones sink, but this is just crazy. 'Concerned that the Biomedical Innovation Organization cannot properly fulfill its duties because inanimate and intangible concepts of human management systems like 'organizations' cannot form health policy...' is the type of precedent your line of reasoning will enshrine."

WONDERS why the resolution in question does not properly acknowledge the lack of efficacy of repealed legislation as Section 5(b) states: "Shall reflect the legal and judicial systems that the World Assembly promotes for member nations in its future, and past regulations", which could result in the ICMP continuing to follow the direction of resolutions that were repealed with good reason.

"There is no way any real human being would interpret that clause to mean anything even close to that. Past in this context clearly means extant and to intentionally interpret it as meaning that the ICMP must mindlessly follow repealed resolutions is just not realistic."

"Sciongrad may be convinced otherwise, but the current arguments put forward are, for the most part, wholly contrived or unconvincing. And we hope your Excellency does not receive this as personal criticism, because it's not - merely the objective opinion on Sciongrad on the content of this draft."

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 7:35 am**

OOC: This is not completely ridiculous, but it has some arguments that will not help your case. Detailed statement forthcoming, hopefully this week.

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2014 7:39 am**

Sciongrad wrote:
Moronist Decisions wrote:Here's what I don't get about this argument. I agree that the ICMP was set up as a committee. However, what I am not quite getting is whether the "Courthouse" is merely part of the title to the committee, or whether it means that this committee is, in fact, responsible for a courthouse.

OOC: I assume this is out of character, because you didn't indicate otherwise. Sorry if I'm mistaken. :blush: Anyway, if you read the entire text of GAR#99, it's so very clearly a committee with both quasi-legislative a quasi-judicial functions. To interpret the resolution as ordering an actual building to formulate policy is just so absurd I can't even express my confoundment in words. Whether or not the committee has its own "courthouse" is not necessarily relevant, although for the sake of ending this entire discussion, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that a committee can both act as an independent agency of the World Assembly while at the same time having its own building, with which it may use to fulfill its duties.

OOC: In reference to this, the original legality discussion:

NERVUN wrote:...The court is, after all, a WA committee acting judicial and passing judgement. This is a right and proper function of the WA and its committiees...

Posted: **Tue May 27, 2014 3:13 am**

Article 2 clearly describes a place, you can substitute the word courthouse for my house and it would mean prisoners would be kipping in my living room.

This resolution seems to expect a committee, but fails to establish one. I am also concerned by all of article 5 which pretty much allows the building in question to write it's own legal code. specifically section c which makes this building answerable only to itself.

Given the poor wording and lack of an oversight function included in this mess we feel that a repeal would be best for everyone concerned.

We would suggest that any replacement actually form a committee, and establish oversight for this institution.
perhaps from the ICC or some other similarly empowered body.

Posted: **Tue May 27, 2014 7:10 am**

The resolution would certainly be a lot clearer without that pesky "house" - I can understand the confusion, although it's not worth getting irate over.

Posted: **Tue May 27, 2014 9:02 am**

I don't necessarily agree that the "Honest Mistakes" clause would apply here as - from my understanding of the "Honest Mistake" precedents I'm aware of - it seems to fall into a gray area that should be argued before the voters rather than decided by the mods. However, since so many ambassadors seem to be skeptical of that argument (although I'll counter by saying that there is a difference in interpretation/understanding when talking about the US Supreme Court and the local County Courthouse - i.e. so the ICC ruling that was cited above does not apply here) ... it's unlikely to be a winning argument.

As such, here's a new approach that was only brought to my mind when I realized that we redid the vast majority of due process-related legislation after the MPA was passed. The issue that MPA realized (and rectified) within prior legislation no longer exists, given all the problematic early resolutions that have been repealed.

Repeal "Multilateral Prosecution Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #99 | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Argument: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the efforts made by this resolution to ensure that certain rights are extended to stateless individuals when captured by a joint effort of multiple WA member nations.

BELIEVES that the WA should ensure that due process and detainment rights should be equal among those that are citizens and legal residents of a given nation and with those that are stateless individuals.

REALIZES that since the passage of this resolution, the World Assembly has worked to ensure that the resolutions regarding due process have been clarified to ensure that the details of the following resolutions affect all individuals, including those who are stateless.

ACKNOWLEDGES that the existence of the International Courthouse for Multilateral Prosecution (ICMP) is unnecessary due to the passage of the following resolutions:
GAR #37, Fairness in Criminal Trials,
GAR #194, Treatment of Inmates,
GAR #198, Preventing Multiple Trials,
GAR #201, Habeas Corpus, and
GAR #202, Convict Appellate Rights.
BELIEVES that the existence of the ICMP, in addition to the aforementioned pieces of legislation, obscures the standards that should be followed when trying and sentencing stateless individuals.

DESIRES a clear set of protocols and standards to follow when dealing with matters of due process and legal rights of all individuals.

REPEALS GAR#99, "Multilateral Prosecution Act."

As always, comments and critiques are welcome!

Posted: **Tue May 27, 2014 9:26 am**

"Your willingness to completely abandon just about every single argument in your repeal and replace them with almost directly opposed arguments suggests an alarming degree of moral flexibility. What actually is your objection to the original resolution? Because we are quite clearly being sold a dummy here.

"Your current argument doesn't really reflect the original resolution:

BELIEVES that the existence of the ICMP, in addition to the aforementioned pieces of legislation, obscures the standards that should be followed when trying and sentencing stateless individuals.

3. Stipulates that once in the custody of the multilateral effort, and in their continued detainment by the ICMP, the detainee must be provided the following
...
(b) Freedoms and necessities of life that are assured to them under WA legislation;
...
5. Specifies that the ICMP...
(a) Will devise and implement a developed arrangement for adjudication, that is primarily focused on addressing the law with a fair and balanced approach. The system will include representation by attorney, self-representation, public defenders, documentation, stenographic transcripts, judicial rulings, a system for appeals of court rulings -- and any other device of the law that allows the ICMP to function more fairly and balanced with respect to the laws of the World Assembly;
(b) Shall reflect the legal and judicial systems that the World Assembly promotes for member nations in its future, and past regulations;
...
7. Further demands that any facilities rented and/or used for one of the aforementioned sentences shall be...
...
(c) In compliance with WA legislation;
...
10. Clarifies that the ICMP must conduct all of its proceedings with full compliance to the laws and regulations of the World Assembly;

"Indeed, it's difficult to see what more the ICMP authorising resolution could have done to avoid 'obscur[ing] the standards' of WA criminal justice."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:08 am**

OOC: Bumping this up, since the proposal has reached quorum.

I'm starting to feel - and I seriously hope I'm wrong - that this wouldn't have gotten there that fast if not for the fact that it's a mod that submitted it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:23 am**

Mousebumples wrote:REALIZES that since the passage of this resolution, the World Assembly has worked to ensure that the resolutions regarding due process have been clarified to ensure that the details of the following resolutions affect all individuals, including those who are stateless.

... Completely missing the point that stateless persons aren't under the jurisdiction of any country, meaning there's no legitimate and legal way to prosecute and sentence a stateless person, no matter how many resolutions are passed on due process. The Multilateral Prosecution Act isn't a due process rights resolution. It's a resolution that creates international jurisdiction for the World Assembly to prosecute individuals that don't fall under the jurisdiction of any state, and thus can't be tried under their criminal justice systems under any legitimate consideration of law. The litany of resolutions bears no relation whatsoever to the purpose of the MPA.

But whatever. Nothing said or done will affect this mod repeal. Just another Honest Mistake from Mousebumples, that will go flying through quorum and the voting floor, let alone any legality challenge heard by her fellow moderators.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:15 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:This is more wrong than people who put milk in their bowl before cereal.

Ambassador Laporte pauses, about to pour milk in a bowl before adding cornflakes. She quickly pushes the offensive items aside and clears her throat.

"The lack of adequate discussion for this proposal demonstrates to us that the proponent of this repeal is not of a mind that entails actually caring about the opinions of the world community beyond exploiting a skewed voting system to advance their agenda. Moreover, this appears to be part of a concerted effort to dismantle any means by which the World Assembly is capable of enforcing its resolutions."

"That the initial draft of the repeal is based upon such a ridiculous bout of semantics speaks less to the necessity of repeal and more to the lack of substance behind the proposition. Ergo, we are OPPOSED to this repeal. If the proponent and their little clique are so opposed to the World Assembly and its resolutions, we would recommend re-evaluating their decision to become a part of this body in the first place."

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:03 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Bumping this up, since the proposal has reached quorum.

I'm starting to feel - and I seriously hope I'm wrong - that this wouldn't have gotten there that fast if not for the fact that it's a mod that submitted it.

What constitutes "that fast" ? This has been publicly debated for nearly a month - although the amount of time spent debating is largely dependent on comments. I can't force players to comment on my proposals, and for whatever reason, this one was largely overlooked in favor of the other repeal I submitted at the same time.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:REALIZES that since the passage of this resolution, the World Assembly has worked to ensure that the resolutions regarding due process have been clarified to ensure that the details of the following resolutions affect all individuals, including those who are stateless.

... Completely missing the point that stateless persons aren't under the jurisdiction of any country, meaning there's no legitimate and legal way to prosecute and sentence a stateless person, no matter how many resolutions are passed on due process. The Multilateral Prosecution Act isn't a due process rights resolution. It's a resolution that creates international jurisdiction for the World Assembly to prosecute individuals that don't fall under the jurisdiction of any state, and thus can't be tried under their criminal justice systems under any legitimate consideration of law. The litany of resolutions bears no relation whatsoever to the purpose of the MPA.

But whatever. Nothing said or done will affect this mod repeal. Just another Honest Mistake from Mousebumples, that will go flying through quorum and the voting floor, let alone any legality challenge heard by her fellow moderators.

I can't speak for what protocols GR follows, but per WA law, my nation is willing to both try and detain stateless individuals and those with a declared nationality. If an individual commits a crime within our borders, and is detained within our borders (or extradited to return them to our territory), they are a "person" or "individual" and thereby are covered under the GA laws I cite in this repeal. The resolutions do not read "citizen" or "legal resident" or ... whatever. These GA laws apply to all individuals - not only those that have a declared nationality, no matter how convenient it may be for you to believe that to be the case.

Valendia wrote:"The lack of adequate discussion for this proposal demonstrates to us that the proponent of this repeal is not of a mind that entails actually caring about the opinions of the world community beyond exploiting a skewed voting system to advance their agenda. Moreover, this appears to be part of a concerted effort to dismantle any means by which the World Assembly is capable of enforcing its resolutions."

A few responses:
1) The WA does not need to establish a "mechanism" to enforce it's resolutions. From an OOC perspective, all resolutions are enforced by the changes in laws in WA member nations. A resolution attempting to "enforce compliance" was ruled illegal due to meta-gaming, which - to me, the player - indicates that there is no need for the ICMP to serve in this role ... nor does this repeal text even mention compliance or the role this resolution theoretically plays in enforcing compliance. (Hint: I don't think it plays a role in that at all, so I didn't see a reason to mention that in the repeal text.)

2) So far as a "lack of adequate discussion" goes, I can't force people to read this thread and reply to my proposed text. The arguments within the repeal text were all within this thread a various times over the past few weeks - almost for a month. Yes, the final draft is an amalgamation of the various drafts I've used, but there weren't really "new arguments" that I threw in at the last minute here. A lack of response and debate on this subject prior to submission is not something that I can control.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:28 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:A few responses:
1) The WA does not need to establish a "mechanism" to enforce it's resolutions. From an OOC perspective, all resolutions are enforced by the changes in laws in WA member nations. A resolution attempting to "enforce compliance" was ruled illegal due to meta-gaming, which - to me, the player - indicates that there is no need for the ICMP to serve in this role ... nor does this repeal text even mention compliance or the role this resolution theoretically plays in enforcing compliance. (Hint: I don't think it plays a role in that at all, so I didn't see a reason to mention that in the repeal text.)

"Indeed. Which is exactly why multilateral prosecution is required since stateless individuals are not covered by the enforcement of World Assembly law through member states. Your argument is self-defeating."

"Additionally, there should be a burden of proof in case of repeal that the target of the repeal is actually harmful; in this case, you have yet to provide adequate evidence that this is the case for the Multilateral Prosecution Act."

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:44 pm**

Valendia wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:A few responses:
1) The WA does not need to establish a "mechanism" to enforce it's resolutions. From an OOC perspective, all resolutions are enforced by the changes in laws in WA member nations. A resolution attempting to "enforce compliance" was ruled illegal due to meta-gaming, which - to me, the player - indicates that there is no need for the ICMP to serve in this role ... nor does this repeal text even mention compliance or the role this resolution theoretically plays in enforcing compliance. (Hint: I don't think it plays a role in that at all, so I didn't see a reason to mention that in the repeal text.)

"Indeed. Which is exactly why multilateral prosecution is required since stateless individuals are not covered by the enforcement of World Assembly law through member states. Your argument is self-defeating."

"Additionally, there should be a burden of proof in case of repeal that the target of the repeal is actually harmful; in this case, you have yet to provide adequate evidence that this is the case for the Multilateral Prosecution Act."

Why are stateless individuals not covered? Are they not considered persons or individuals? As I stated earlier in my response (this part was oriented to GR), my nation gladly tries and detains individuals - both stateless and with a declared nationality - within our territory, per WA law. How does your nation re-interpret existing law to make it not apply to stateless individuals?

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:56 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:Why are stateless individuals not covered? Are they not considered persons or individuals? As I stated earlier in my response (this part was oriented to GR), my nation gladly tries and detains individuals - both stateless and with a declared nationality - within our territory, per WA law. How does your nation re-interpret existing law to make it not apply to stateless individuals?

"Stateless individuals will not be if you continue on your little crusade to dismantle things which answer questions of things like non-state actors committing violations of international law. Mandatory compliance is not a mechanism of enforcement, nor does it preclude the possibility of malfeasance or exploitation of loopholes in order to cheat the system. You have yet to provide sufficient evidence that the existence of acts like these are of sufficient harm to merit their repeal. That is the simple fact of the matter."

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:24 pm**

Valendia wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:Why are stateless individuals not covered? Are they not considered persons or individuals? As I stated earlier in my response (this part was oriented to GR), my nation gladly tries and detains individuals - both stateless and with a declared nationality - within our territory, per WA law. How does your nation re-interpret existing law to make it not apply to stateless individuals?

"Stateless individuals will not be if you continue on your little crusade to dismantle things which answer questions of things like non-state actors committing violations of international law. Mandatory compliance is not a mechanism of enforcement, nor does it preclude the possibility of malfeasance or exploitation of loopholes in order to cheat the system. You have yet to provide sufficient evidence that the existence of acts like these are of sufficient harm to merit their repeal. That is the simple fact of the matter."

Thanks for ignoring my point completely. I'll take that to mean that you don't really have a response there and would rather sabre-rattle about things that are unrelated to the question I posed to you.

Cheers, etc.,

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:32 am**

Mousebumples wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Bumping this up, since the proposal has reached quorum.

I'm starting to feel - and I seriously hope I'm wrong - that this wouldn't have gotten there that fast if not for the fact that it's a mod that submitted it.

What constitutes "that fast" ? This has been publicly debated for nearly a month - although the amount of time spent debating is largely dependent on comments. I can't force players to comment on my proposals, and for whatever reason, this one was largely overlooked in favor of the other repeal I submitted at the same time.

That's a bit disingenuous. The version of your repeal you submitted is not your Draft 2, which is the most recent one anyone commented on in this thread. You redrafted your proposal - the argument is quite differently presented - and submitted it without comment. From anyone else, that would have elicited howls of outrage from the usual suspects. Indeed, you are the most influential proponent of the view that every resolution has to be drafted on the forum and should be voted down regardless of content if it is not. There doesn't seem to be much point in that position if it doesn't actually lead to drafting.

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal "Multilateral Prosecution Act"

[PASSED] Repeal "Multilateral Prosecution Act"