Repeal WA Counterterrorism Act

[Arcismalia]

B) DEFINES “civilians”, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces or police."

This should be amended to say - B) DEFINES "civilians", for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or intelligence services."

Intelligence services do not fall under Armed Forces or Police and are not civilians.

Here I define "Intelligence Services" as "Government Organisations which aim to gather information on national security or other Nations." "Intelligence Services" are not to be confused with S.W.A.T teams, counter-terrorist squads or other specialised branches of police or military.

This repeal asks for the repeal and amendment of the WA Counterterrorism Act with this change.

This change may seem small but is important because without this amendment, people could be unjustly called terrorists and then subjected to harder treatment as the wouldn't be classed as POWs.

[Philimbesi]

B) DEFINES “civilians”, for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces or police."

This should be amended to say - B) DEFINES "civilians", for the purpose of this resolution, as "persons who are not members of their nation's armed forces, police or intelligence services."

Intelligence services do not fall under Armed Forces or Police and are not civilians.

Here I define "Intelligence Services" as "Government Organisations which aim to gather information on national security or other Nations." "Intelligence Services" are not to be confused with S.W.A.T teams, counter-terrorist squads or other specialised branches of police or military.

This repeal asks for the repeal and amendment of the WA Counterterrorism Act with this change.

This change may seem small but is important because this would mean that people would be unjustly called terrorists and then subjected to harder treatment as the wouldn't be classed as POWs.

Illegal.

[Arcismalia]

illegal? what is and how? My amendment proposal is not illegal. Oh is worded something wrong. Without this act they would have the harder treatment. Corrected it.

[Secruss]

I also support repealing this act.

[Arcismalia]

If you support it could you make your region delegate aware of it because to get it to go to the vote i need 6% of delegates to support it.

[Quintessence of Dust]

A repeal cannot introduce new legislation or amend an existing resolution. A repeal has one effect: to strike out and render null all parts of the old resolution.

[Philimbesi]

illegal? what is and how? My amendment proposal is not illegal. Oh is worded something wrong. Without this act they would have the harder treatment. Corrected it.

It's illegal in that it IS an amendment proposal, you can't amend a resolution...period dot.

Also you can't introduce new litigation in a repeal request... therefore it's doubly illegal.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The general rules of WA proposals do not allow amendments to be made and there is a reason why it is not possible.

[Arcismalia]

A new Counterterrorism act with this small change would be made straight after. This has been done before, with the counterterrorist act itself. If you are saying it can't be done because of this rule:

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

That rule is about creating a WA army or police, not about setting rules about other countries intelligence services.

[Quintessence of Dust]

A new Counterterrorism act with this small change would be made straight after. This has been done before, with the counterterrorist act itself.

That would be your second strike: it'd be plagiarising the original resolution. You'd need to ask the author's permission before regurgitating their proposal with only minor changes.

[Arcismalia]

Do I? I don't think I do because acts have been repealed and amended in that way before. Also that is like saying making amendments to the US Constitution, they should have asked the original founding fathers. Anyway you could either support or not support the act instead of saying stuff like that.

[Philimbesi]

One would think that all of the rule for submitting a proposal on the floor of the WA would be consolidated in a place where a new nation could read them before submitting something that's illegal in like 15 ways...


oh wait... there is!

[Arcismalia]

illegal? what is and how? My amendment proposal is not illegal. Oh is worded something wrong. Without this act they would have the harder treatment. Corrected it.

It's illegal in that it IS an amendment proposal, you can't amend a resolution...period dot.

Also you can't introduce new litigation in a repeal request... therefore it's doubly illegal.

Acts have been repealed many times before and then replaced by amended versions. Check the previous resolutions for proof.

[Arcismalia]

ok I have read it and I can't amend it but the WA are contridicting themselves because they have amended b4.

[Philimbesi]

ok I have ready and I can't amend it but the WA are contridicting themselves because they have amended b4.

No they've repealed and then resubmitted a new version (with the authors permission) with the changes. It's how it's done around here.. It's got to be two separate things.

[Arcismalia]

yes but they say they will do that, i mean to do that.#

if they just said repeal it but didn't say they were going to propose a new amended version then it would never be repealed.

[Philimbesi]

SEEKING an opportunity to establish a better, more accurate resolution to help more effectively fight global terrorism with well established definitions of those mentioned in this and former Resolutions,

The World Assembly hereby repeals the “Prevention of Terrorism” resolution.

Is something close to what your repeal would have to say, but it couldn't include the new definitions...


Look I'm trying to help you, you've got the wrong idea in your head if you submit that your going to get a strike...

[Arcismalia]

philimsembi - when my repeal proposal gets deleted for rule violations, could you help me redraft it to make it legal?

[Philimbesi]

philimsembi - when my repeal proposal gets deleted for rule violations, could you help me redraft it to make it legal?

I'm not a good source as you'd be asking me to draft something that I disagree with.

[Arcismalia]

why do you disagree? without this change POWs could be labelled terrorists and treated badly

[Philimbesi]

why do you disagree? without this change POWs could be labelled terrorists and treated badly

Ah...no... they are labeled POW's and covered by The Prisoners of War accord.

Further we don't want our Intelligence team members classified as military since if they were military their presence in the nation could be interpreted as an act of war.

[Arcismalia]

I didn't say they would be classed as military... i said they wouldn't be classed as civillians. POWs don't include terrorists or do they in this world?

[The Altan Steppes]

As the Philimbesi representative pointed out, POW's are covered by the Prisoners of War accord. They aren't connected to terrorists at all. Nothing about the WA Counterterrorism Act affects or mentions POWs.

We also point out that it seems counterproductive to repeal a resolution that was well-vetted and extensively discussed before coming to vote for such a minor reason as how a nation may choose to classify its intelligence services. For example, my nation does, in fact, consider its intelligence agency (Federation Security and Intelligence) as a part of its security forces. FSI and the Federation Defense Forces share information, equipment and resources, and coordinate on many levels. FSI agents, for example, assisted Federation forces in our recent effort to take down a hostile nation that was threatening its neighbors in our region. There is even a division of FSI, the Military Security Service, that is responsible for monitoring our armed forces for any internal security threats. FSI and our military are unavoidably intertwined.

While we understand your argument, we do not feel it is sufficient reason to repeal a proven and effective piece of legislation in the anti-terrorism fight, especially since we have no way of knowing what (if anything) would replace it.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

[Arcismalia]

That is the point, the act says if someone attacks army or police they will be classed as POWs not as terrorists but if they attack intelligence services because of the loophole they will be terrorists.

[The Palentine]

*sigh!* I just know I'm going to regret dragging myself into this discussion. *sigh!*
Firstly, some definitions....
Terrorist:(adj or noun):one who usesthe systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

POW or Prisioner of War: a person captured in war ; especially : a member of the armed forces of a nation who is taken by the enemy during combat

That is the point, the act says if someone attacks army or police they will be classed as POWs not as terrorists but if they attack intelligence services because of the loophole they will be terrorists.

I'm sorry, Spanky, but I fail to see a loophole. Furthermore, I agree with my esteemed colleagues from the Altan Stepps, and Philimbesi.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla