Advertisement
by Parti Ouvrier » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:43 pm
Jasarite wrote:this has my support.
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:15 pm
Quelesh wrote:Mousebumples wrote:REQUIRES that all WA member nations have reasonable protocols in place that both prevent abductions of their residents and also aid in the safe recovery of all missing individuals,
If the police track down a missing individual and learn that she does not wish to be recovered, does the fact that the government now knows where she is meet the "safe recovery" requirement? I suppose this isn't such a big deal, since this clause only requires "reasonable protocols" that "aid" a safe recovery; it does not require that any "recovery" actually take place.
Quelesh wrote:Mousebumples wrote:SPECIFIES that member states may determine whether runaways from within their jurisdiction should be returned to their home,
I do like this clause, at least insofar as it allows us to leave runaways alone, at least so long as they are not "suspected or known" to have crossed a national border.
Quelesh wrote:Mousebumples wrote:MANDATES that the relevant local and national agencies share relevant information through MIA and also cooperate with other WA member nations whenever it is suspected or known that a missing individual has moved across a national border,
If someone from another member state runs away and makes his way to Quelesh, and our law enforcement is notified by MIA or by the other member state that he may be in our nation, would we be required to apprehend him? Would we be required to force him to return to his nation of origin if he does not want to go back? Would this affect our ability to grant him asylum?
Quelesh wrote:Also, does the requirement to "cooperate with other WA member nations" compel us to extradite any individuals that the other nation believes were involved in an abduction, even if there is a possibility that they will be put to death?
Quelesh wrote:Mousebumples wrote:STIPULATES that all who were knowingly involved in the abduction of an individual shall be prosecuted to the full extent of national and international law,
I appreciate the addition of the word "knowingly" to this clause; however, this wording could still require the prosecution of someone who was unwillingly involved. If Person A holds a gun to Person B's head and demands that Person B participate in an abduction, we should not be required to prosecute Person B for complying with Person A's demand, even though Person B was "knowingly involved."
Granted, there is somewhat of a loophole in this clause, in that it only requires prosecution "to the full extent of... [the] law." If our law does not allow for the prosecution of those who were unwillingly involved in an act (the full extent of the law does not allow any prosecution at all), then the requirement of the clause has been met. However, I would still be happier with the inclusion of the word "willingly" or something similar.
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:23 pm
Imperial Yamea wrote:As we have said before we support this.
Jasarite wrote:this has my support.
Parti Ouvrier wrote:I'm instinctively oppose to the politics of fear. We will oppose all resolutions using emotional blackmail, there are enough of them already in the WA.
by Cool Egg Sandwich » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:27 pm
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:46 pm
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:Hey I just wanted to reiterate that for consistency of language you should refer to WA members as either 1) member nations or 2) member states.
You seem to use both at various points; just from a stylistic point of view it would be better to pick one and stick with it.
Rgds.,
by Cool Egg Sandwich » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:49 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:Hey I just wanted to reiterate that for consistency of language you should refer to WA members as either 1) member nations or 2) member states.
You seem to use both at various points; just from a stylistic point of view it would be better to pick one and stick with it.
Rgds.,
I probably do. Damn edits on differing occasions. I'll make a note to change that when I'm less tired.
Thanks for the observation.
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:57 pm
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:Pretty much the only thing I'm good at...
by Cool Egg Sandwich » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:00 pm
by Parti Ouvrier » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:40 pm
REQUIRES that all WA member nations have reasonable protocols in place that both prevent abductions of their residents and also aid in the safe recovery of all missing individuals,
by Mousebumples » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:48 pm
Parti Ouvrier wrote:If there is a realization that most countries have procedures in place to deal with missing individuals, then why the moral panic and call for this resolution? I think we're all capable of pulling together to help one another find our missing individuals yet the bureaucratic MB believes the WA should have a resolution in place to tell us what we already know from experience.
Take this for example:REQUIRES that all WA member nations have reasonable protocols in place that both prevent abductions of their residents and also aid in the safe recovery of all missing individuals,
The implication is that we are not competent enough to work out any protocols and like children, we must be instructed that we should have protocols. Oh, and ones to prevent abductions of our residents as if there is a sudden explosion of individuals being abducted. This is yet another example of what happens when we do not have due vigilance, the main abduction I see here is one of the right to what I.Kant said, to 'use our own understanding without the guidance from others.' Of course we should not be surprised that the misanthropists shove this liberty reducing resolution on the basis of something that might happen so we must have preventative protocols in place for this. The author naturally reveals their own authoritarianism in writing this resolution, a cynic would think this is an excuse to increase military and police spending, but I think the politics of fear of something bad might happen is what really inspired this resolution.
by Serrland » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:46 am
STIPULATES that all who were knowingly involved in the illegal/illicit abduction of an individual shall be prosecuted to the full extent of national and international law,
by Sanctaria » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:50 am
Serrland wrote:The Serri delegation finds this to be a well-crafted and much-needed resolution. However, it would wish to offer a suggestion regarding the wording of one of the clauses, quoted below.STIPULATES that all who were knowingly involved in the illegal/illicit abduction of an individual shall be prosecuted to the full extent of national and international law,
by Serrland » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:55 am
Sanctaria wrote:Serrland wrote:The Serri delegation finds this to be a well-crafted and much-needed resolution. However, it would wish to offer a suggestion regarding the wording of one of the clauses, quoted below.
I may be having a mind blank here, but when is an abduction legal, Ambassador? I think the word abduction has a very clear meaning - taken against their will.
Rgds.,
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:43 am
by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:27 pm
by Mousebumples » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:05 pm
Serrland wrote:The Serri delegation requested that change with police actions in mind - legal incarceration in a gaol or other such facilities is not so terribly different from abduction in certain circumstances. Related are non-consensual assignments to psychiatric facilities.
Parti Ouvrier wrote:We've never voted for any of MB's resolutions because I wasn't around at the time, but they weren't half bad. That is to say I might have voted for them, I certainly would not have voted against them. However this resolution gives me the impression of a delegate desperate to get another resolution on their list of achievements, only this one is so very grey and far from shiny. The last resolution I voted for was shiny because it was bold. The last resolution represented fearlessness,(Res. #142) this one represents an uninspiring dullness and fearfulness.
Remain opposed.
by Bears Armed » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:28 am
Mousebumples wrote:I suppose a nation could also, technically, use this as a loophole by making abductions legal in their borders. But I'd figure that has to be covered under GA law somewhere, right? (I must admit that I am actually far too lazy to check right now.)
by Parti Ouvrier » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:58 am
by Mousebumples » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:14 pm
by Mousebumples » Sat May 14, 2011 5:38 pm
by Mahaj WA Seat » Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Mousebumples » Sat May 14, 2011 7:26 pm
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:I guess I can tentatively offer support...
by Groundisred » Sat May 14, 2011 7:41 pm
by Punk Reloaded » Sat May 14, 2011 8:48 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement