NationStates

It is pretty simple, in the form that the WA Counterterrorism Act is at the moment, people who attack Police or Military forces will not be classed as terrorists but people who attack Intelligence services are.

Arcismalia wrote:It is pretty simple, in the form that the WA Counterterrorism Act is at the moment, people who attack Police or Military forces will not be classed as terrorists but people who attack Intelligence services are.

Ah...No.

If a person not affiliated with a military entity drives a truckload of fertilizer and transmission fluid and parks it outside a military installation and detonates it... he's a terrorist, the target doesn't matter, it's the attacker.

Philimbesi wrote:If a person not affiliated with a military entity drives a truckload of fertilizer and transmission fluid and parks it outside a military installation and detonates it... he's a terrorist, the target doesn't matter, it's the attacker.

Well, on a personal note I think you're correct, but if we pay attention to the definitions provided by the Resolution in question we'll find that the status of both the attacker and the attacked matter. In the case you provided... it doesn't seem to be a terrorist act or an act of war. It's probably just a crime, all-be-it a rather ballsy one.

That being said... this repeal is silly. It's based upon the idea that the Resolution in question defines Intelligence Operatives as civilians. It most certainly does not.

"A) DEFINES “terrorism” as the use of violence by non-state actors for the purpose of creating fear or terror, to achieve a social, political, or religious outcome, and either committed with deliberate disregard or specific targeting of civilians or non-combatants."

I should think they're more along the lines of non-combatants. However questionable the definitions are when compared to a dictionary don't concern me. This Resolution, in and of itself, is beautiful. Repealing it would be stupid.

That being said... this repeal is silly. It's based upon the idea that the Resolution in question defines Intelligence Operatives as civilians. It most certainly does not.

To say nothing of the fact that it's still illegal as written.

Philimbesi wrote:To say nothing of the fact that it's still illegal as written.

Illegal, yes. I believe it is more important to discredit the intentions behind such a repeal, however, since lately it seems that proposals reach quorom AND pass even while its legality is being contended.

So I say... legal or not, this repeal is ill-founded and shouldn't recieve support. In such a case as this all should immediately refer to the Resolution being repealed. It is fine as is.