Air Travel Security Act (Re-Draft)

[Sionis Prioratus]

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information unless authorized by law; also outlaws invasive searching of citizens by law enforcement without reasonable cause for suspicion.

(Are all passengers to be considered potential terrorists? Some paranoia here!)*

And if it didn't say "everybody", you instead would be screaming and bleating about "illegal profiling", now wouldn't you ambassador?

"Screaming and bleating" is way more appropriate for your Delegation, Your Honor.

I would be, and I am, politely addressing.

Yes, profiling would be illegal.

Politely Yours,

[Priatha]

Ambassador,

I have a few problems with this Act other than those previously mentioned. Before Priatha can consider voting for it, these issues would have to be addressed:

I. You mention in 1d that passengers being searched have the right to be read their rights, however this right will not be told to them, and if they do not ask for their rights they will forfeit it. Because hardcopies of legislation is often beyond the reach of many citizens, and the intimate details are often unknown, this would leave many citizens unaware of the fact that they have any rights to be read -- let alone able to ask for them! Therefore I would suggest these rights must be read, or else disciplinary action will be taken against the searchers who failed to read it. This is the only way to ensure rights are protected.

II. The No-Fly list must be made up of more than just names. If it is not, then there is the risk of people who should legally be allowed to fly finding themselves forbidden from doing so. This is unacceptable -- just because someone has the name Joe Smythe, and there is a terrorist named Joe Smythe, that does not mean that the former should be forbidden from flying when they are not the latter. Further, terrorists may not be traveling under their own name -- in fact, they would be silly to. Therefore, I propose you include in this bill the following requirements for a no fly list:
a) To be made up of a name, known aliases, a picture (when available), a physical description (when available), and a description of the crimes he or she is to have committed;
b) Increased suspicion and more in-depth searches for those who match only one of the above descriptions -- e.g., the same name, or a similar appearance -- but not an outright ban of the right to fly.

III. There needs to be a provision in place that prevents the airport security from stealing the items they confiscate, preferably a system where one receives a ticket that matches a number issued to the item, which is then stored at the airport until they return and present the ticket. It is the belief of Priatha that it is wrong for the government to steal items when nothing wrong has been done with them.

IV. Require the airline to issue passengers a later ticket, as well as require the airline to provide lodgings, for any passenger who misses his or her flight due to security searches if they are found to be not guilty of any security threats.

When these issues are satisfactorily addressed, Priatha will consider supporting this Act.

[Bergnovinaia]

Ambassador,

I have a few problems with this Act other than those previously mentioned. Before Priatha can consider voting for it, these issues would have to be addressed:

I. You mention in 1d that passengers being searched have the right to be read their rights, however this right will not be told to them, and if they do not ask for their rights they will forfeit it. Because hardcopies of legislation is often beyond the reach of many citizens, and the intimate details are often unknown, this would leave many citizens unaware of the fact that they have any rights to be read -- let alone able to ask for them! Therefore I would suggest these rights must be read, or else disciplinary action will be taken against the searchers who failed to read it. This is the only way to ensure rights are protected.

II. The No-Fly list must be made up of more than just names. If it is not, then there is the risk of people who should legally be allowed to fly finding themselves forbidden from doing so. This is unacceptable -- just because someone has the name Joe Smythe, and there is a terrorist named Joe Smythe, that does not mean that the former should be forbidden from flying when they are not the latter. Further, terrorists may not be traveling under their own name -- in fact, they would be silly to. Therefore, I propose you include in this bill the following requirements for a no fly list:
a) To be made up of a name, known aliases, a picture (when available), a physical description (when available), and a description of the crimes he or she is to have committed;
b) Increased suspicion and more in-depth searches for those who match only one of the above descriptions -- e.g., the same name, or a similar appearance -- but not an outright ban of the right to fly.

III. There needs to be a provision in place that prevents the airport security from stealing the items they confiscate, preferably a system where one receives a ticket that matches a number issued to the item, which is then stored at the airport until they return and present the ticket. It is the belief of Priatha that it is wrong for the government to steal items when nothing wrong has been done with them.

IV. Require the airline to issue passengers a later ticket, as well as require the airline to provide lodgings, for any passenger who misses his or her flight due to security searches if they are found to be not guilty of any security threats.

When these issues are satisfactorily addressed, Priatha will consider supporting this Act.

All adressed now except one change where the federal government in each nation is responsible for paying for lodging, airfare, etc. if accusations are proven to be false.

[Nateistan]

good job man

[Tanaara]

The tone of voice that spoke up was very very dry. "And all these expensice things are to be paid for how? By nations that can barely feed their people they are to be required to have machines that cost hundreds, if not thousands of aurics. They are to have and pay the salaries of trained personel and canine adjuncts? They are to maintain computerized and comprehensive data bases when they might not even have computers available to do such?"

The UnDelegate shook his head. "Personally I think this is a matter for individual nations. One nations terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Who are we to suddenly pass judgements on others citizenry? What about nations that will use a 'no fly' list to keep dissidents confined to the nation so they can be persecuted, or worse?"

and purely OOC for a moment:

400 ml maximum

- thats a real world measurement, not possible under the way things are currently set up

and in uttmost realism, if I were a nursing mother who was required to drink some of my breast milk to prove it is 'just that' there would be lawsuits filed so fast the WA would enter orbit off of the thrust of the spinning heads! By the way breastmilk is perishable and must be kept chilled, just like regular milk. So must most insulins - and those need syringes to be administered, so you are already allowing on planes the same equipment the last wanna be used...

And strip searches of children - highly controversial and problematic... and filming it? erm, want charges of child porn headed your way?

[Bears Armed]

In light of recent RL events, I made this WA proposal. Please comment. Thanks!

Airport Security Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The WA:

RECOGNIZES the threat of terrorism on both domestic and international levels.

REALIZES that precautions and new measures need to be taken to effectively monitor and control air travel security.

"Well, we have no 'domestic' terrorism threat."

APPLAUDS nations that have effective security precautions and hence, have an excellent security track record.

CONCLUDES that accurate and effective security precautions must be taken at all security checkpoints or the safety of air travel will be jeopardized.

HEREBY mandates the following:

I. Implementation of full body scanners at all security checkpoints.
1. DEFINES a full body scanner as an imaging system that is able to see through articles of clothing to identify potentially hazardous items on a person.
2. All operators of full body scanners must be vigilant and alert of any suspicious items on any person regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc.
3. Metal Detectors shall also be used in addition/tandem to full body scanners to identify weapons and other potentially hazardous metal materials.

OOC: And, apart from the problem of expense, how would this work for nations that have airflight but that are not operating at "modern" levels of technology? Consider for one admittedly unusual example the case of Cobdenia, which exists within a time-warp whose nature converts any high-tech items that anybody tries to import there into their 1920s/1930s counterparts...

II. Presence of bomb sniffing dogs at all security checkpoints.
1. A ratio of 1 bomb sniffing dog to 15 security personnel or greater is mandatory at all security checkpoints.
2. DEFINES a bomb sniffing dog as any K-9 that is effectively able to detect a bomb or bomb materials on any person or in any luggage.

"Why dogs? We would use pigs, which have a similar if not superior capability to sniff out explosives and are more intelligent than dogs, instead... and other nations might have yet other preferences about this point. For that matter, some of the more 'advanced' nations might even have technlogical devices that can do the job with even greater effectiveness."

III. Implementation of a 400 ml maximum limit on any liquid except the following:
1. Breast Milk and food for feeding tubes (Which must be drunk by the mother or care-taker respectively to prove that it is not another liquid).
2. Any liquid that is vital to one’s medical safety and health (i.e. Insulin for diabetics).

"Nonsense! Even if this is to apply only to 'cabin luggage', and not to rule out the air-freight of liquids altogether, it makes no allowance for the potentially differing requirements of different cultures or different species...
"Hr'rmm, actually, as this clause does not specifcy that it applies only to each passenger's luggage -- The limit is meant to be per passenger, rather than per flight, I hope? -- wouldn't it technically apply to the aircraft's fuel load as welll?"

IV. Presence of psychological state analyzers (PSA) at all security checkpoints.
1. DEFINES a PSA as a person who has received a degree from a university in psychology and is able to detect anxious persons who could be signaled out as a threat.
2. Requires that security personnel perform extra safety measures on signaled out persons.

"So anybody who is nervous about going up in one of those contraptions must be singled out for extra attention from the security personnel? Bah!"

HEREBY allows the following:

1. Security personnel to confiscate any item that is suspected of being hazardous to the safety of the passengers beyond the security checkpoint. However, this item must be later proven to be hazardous and not something that the personnel wanted to steal from the passenger to make a profit. However, items must be returned to the owner upon return to the airport of confiscation except where they are items that were clearly intent on doing damage (i.e firearms).

"Again, is this supposed to apply only to 'cabin luggage' or would it extend to luggage that would be carried in the hold -- and possibly air-freight, too -- as well?"

2. To perform a strip search on any passenger regardless of race, age, gender, etc.
a)All strip searches are to be recorded and monitored by the IASA (mentioned later).
b)If a passenger complains any time before, during, or after the search, the personnel must have a valid safety concern reason as to why they performed a strip search on said passenger because the tapes will be reviewed regardless by the IASA.
c)Any person who is deemed necessary to have a strip search performed on has the right to an attorney, the right to refuse access to board the plane (hence avoiding the search), and the right to a search by the same gender and/or doctor.
d) These rights must be read before the search. However, these rights must be requested (after they are read to them) by said person and if they are not, the rights are waived.

"I share the concerns that various of my colleagues have already raised about this clause."

3. To search through any suspicious luggage that appears in x-ray to have a dangerous item (i.e. gun or bomb materials) or is sniffed out by a bomb sniffing dog.

"Reasonable, as long as provision is made for alternative sources of concern too."

HEREBY creates the International Airport Security Administration (IASA) to do the following:

1. Ensure that all mandatory safety precautions under this legislation exist and are being operated effectively and accurately.
2. To investigate claims made by passengers against security personnel of sexual molestation, rape, etc. during a strip search and claims of robbery when personnel confiscates an object.
3. To analyze safety precautions at security checkpoints and create new measures as deemed fit.
4. To keep a running list of all suspected, active, and ex-terrorists and their organizations. The IASA is hereby given the authority to create a no-fly from these lists where anyone identifiable by name, picture, known aliases (where available), physical description (where available), and description of their crimes committed.
a) Increased suspicion and more in-depth searches for those who match only one of the above descriptions -- e.g., the same name, or a similar appearance -- but not an outright ban of the right to fly.
5. House and secure all tapes of strip searches and archive them in an orderly manner where all tapes are easily found.

"Is this really a necessary addition to the national agencies?"


"I would further add that there needs to be the usual boilerplate clause along the lines of "except as specified by earlier resolutions that are still in force... because otherwise you would have an illegal contradiction with the existing resolution on the topic of diplomatic immunity.
"Oh, and please can we have a clarification about whether this would apply only to 'commercial' flights or whether it would extend to 'government' missions too..."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Slaytesics]

I am all for this, this is a great idea, how come it hasn't ben implemented before.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador to Bergnovinaia, you are going into micromanagement here, which is taking up valuable character space.

Now, a VERY important question here: why on earth should we be mandated to implement full body scanners without respect for privacy and nudity laws? Full body scanners are able to dig deep into the skin, and therefore there is a cause for concern in regards to "naked" images.

[Ardchoille]

Bergnovinaia, before you get too bogged down in details, have a think about what, exactly, you want to achieve. From what I've read, it's this:

1. You want all airports to use specific technological means to detect terrorists.
2. You want this to happen despite the fact that some nations can't afford it and others can't support it (because of their technological level, resistance to use of dogs, etc).

So spaceports can be ally-ally-in-free, and we know terrorists never travel by train or bus?

What about matter-transporter pads or market squares where carts and animal caravans gather? What about, as has already been said, nations that don't have airports?

You have to think about these things because this is the international lawmaking body of NationStates, and the nations are varied by technology, by chronology and by species.

So, would it be fair to say the principle you want followed is that all transport hubs of whatever kind should use the highest technology available to them to detect and prevent attempts to kill passengers while they're travelling on any form of mass transport?

You've provided for what I'll call a committee to oversee the process to make sure that it really is the highest form available -- technology "such as, but not limited to" full-body scanners, sniffer dogs, etc.

The committee is also to advise nations on what checks should be made, including limitations on the amount of liquids or nutrients passengers may take aboard.

See how I'm generalising? That's why the Counterterrorism Act, which you've said doesn't tell nations what to do, in fact does so, but deliberately phrases it in very general terms.

The details that you've listed are thorough and, in many cases, applicable, but they're the sort of regulations that the committee itself should be making. The committee's regulations for Ardchoille won't use sniffer dogs, because the poor beasts would go nuts around our feline citizens; yet ones for a nation of oviparous non-humans might still have details about breast milk, to cover incoming mammalian passengers; and so on.

All the WA needs to do is to give guidelines about what areas the committee is required to cover. It doesn't have to write the books of regulations; that's the committee's job.

This is all very fine, but doesn't handle the costs. Furthermore, a proposal that does no more than set up a committee is illegal. So it has to do something more.

Maybe the WA itself should supply and install. Do you think you could word that persuasively enough to get majority agreement? In the old free-spending days of the NSUN, it was often enough to say, "The NSUN shall (do this)" and leave the source of the finances undefined. Do you think you can soft-shoe shuffle that one past the current delegates?

Could you somehow finagle funding out of the WA General Fund? (I don't think so, though you might be able to fund the committee itself that way, since it would be administrative.)

Could you set up a voluntary contributions scheme along the lines of the General Fund, to buy security equipment for all WA nations to install at all transport hubs? Are there conditions under which it wouldn't fund the purchase of security-check equipment?

Is there some way you could get around the direct taxation ban or the free trade laws so that the passengers or the transport companies (which may or may not be government run) would pay for the new equipment?

In all of this re-drafting, is your original category still appropriate? Emphasising a new aspect may make a different category a better fit.

I realise a string of questions with no answers provided may be no help at all, and just make you want to kick me for another nitpicker. Why I'm asking them is to help you think about what you actually want your proposal to do and what it legally can do.

[Bergnovinaia]

Bergnovinaia, before you get too bogged down in details, have a think about what, exactly, you want to achieve. From what I've read, it's this:

1. You want all airports to use specific technological means to detect terrorists.
2. You want this to happen despite the fact that some nations can't afford it and others can't support it (because of their technological level, resistance to use of dogs, etc).

So spaceports can be ally-ally-in-free, and we know terrorists never travel by train or bus?

What about matter-transporter pads or market squares where carts and animal caravans gather? What about, as has already been said, nations that don't have airports?

You have to think about these things because this is the international lawmaking body of NationStates, and the nations are varied by technology, by chronology and by species.

So, would it be fair to say the principle you want followed is that all transport hubs of whatever kind should use the highest technology available to them to detect and prevent attempts to kill passengers while they're travelling on any form of mass transport?

You've provided for what I'll call a committee to oversee the process to make sure that it really is the highest form available -- technology "such as, but not limited to" full-body scanners, sniffer dogs, etc.

The committee is also to advise nations on what checks should be made, including limitations on the amount of liquids or nutrients passengers may take aboard.

See how I'm generalising? That's why the Counterterrorism Act, which you've said doesn't tell nations what to do, in fact does so, but deliberately phrases it in very general terms.

The details that you've listed are thorough and, in many cases, applicable, but they're the sort of regulations that the committee itself should be making. The committee's regulations for Ardchoille won't use sniffer dogs, because the poor beasts would go nuts around our feline citizens; yet ones for a nation of oviparous non-humans might still have details about breast milk, to cover incoming mammalian passengers; and so on.

All the WA needs to do is to give guidelines about what areas the committee is required to cover. It doesn't have to write the books of regulations; that's the committee's job.

This is all very fine, but doesn't handle the costs. Furthermore, a proposal that does no more than set up a committee is illegal. So it has to do something more.

Maybe the WA itself should supply and install. Do you think you could word that persuasively enough to get majority agreement? In the old free-spending days of the NSUN, it was often enough to say, "The NSUN shall (do this)" and leave the source of the finances undefined. Do you think you can soft-shoe shuffle that one past the current delegates?

Could you somehow finagle funding out of the WA General Fund? (I don't think so, though you might be able to fund the committee itself that way, since it would be administrative.)

Could you set up a voluntary contributions scheme along the lines of the General Fund, to buy security equipment for all WA nations to install at all transport hubs? Are there conditions under which it wouldn't fund the purchase of security-check equipment?

Is there some way you could get around the direct taxation ban or the free trade laws so that the passengers or the transport companies (which may or may not be government run) would pay for the new equipment?

In all of this re-drafting, is your original category still appropriate? Emphasising a new aspect may make a different category a better fit.

I realise a string of questions with no answers provided may be no help at all, and just make you want to kick me for another nitpicker. Why I'm asking them is to help you think about what you actually want your proposal to do and what it legally can do.

Thanks for all of the questions! Your "nitpicking" actually helped me signal out flaws and errors in this draft legislation. I will change all of this and re-draft later today but I have one question before I re-draft... I know since I have indeed passed legislation before this period that you should talk in very general terms in WA resolutions so perhaps a resolution that is titled along the lines of "Air Travel Safety Act" would be better becuase that would apply to all forms of air travel (space, airplane, etc.) and make it about the highest types of counter-terrorism technology need to be used at the place where one board an "air travel device?" Would the second part of that be a house of cards violation becuase nowhere in the "Counter-Terrorism Act" does it require nations to use the "highest form" of technology available at airports/spaceports?

[Ardchoille]

If Counterterrorism were repealed, could your proposal still stand? That's the HoC test.

I think the problem is more with duplication. Counterterrorism's "REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law" is pretty extensive. I'm reading "the highest form" as included in "all effective measures". There may be some wriggle room in the concept of "must keep security measures updated to the most recent effective form of technology available". I'd really have to see the wording. ("Highest" wasn't the result of long thought on my part, and any competent nitpicker would be able to shoot it down. It's vague.)

"Air Travel" seems a good way to broaden it. Nations that don't travel by air can simply disregard it, just as landlocked nations don't worry about Cobdenia's Law of the Sea. (I dunno what I was thinking, repeating that "don't have airports" line. )

[Ayzmo]

I think you misunderstood my question about minors...

I wasn't just asking whether or not you'd do it but asking what stipulations would be made.

A minor, by definition, doesn't have the legal authority to consent to a strip search. Parental/guardian authority would be needed to search the minor.

Also, a minor can't be assumed to know or understand their rights. Simply stating that they have the right to someone there to protect them doesn't help if the minor doesn't understand why. In the case of a minor I feel that it would be better if all precautions are taken beforehand rather than they be needed to be requested.

[Bergnovinaia]

I re-drafted and took into effect everyones comments. I also took out the controversial "strip search" clause and I just put "Further investigation of a suspected terrorist or their items."

[A mean old man]

I like the general idea, but before reading over it and thinking too deeply about the points expressed, I've got something to ask.

This draft is huge! How many characters are in this? I'm worried it might exceed the maximum.

[Bergnovinaia]

I checked just now and it actually fits... There are something like 740 words and 4,600 characters (with spaces).

[Bergnovinaia]

So... any new comments?

[Bergnovinaia]

Is it better, worse...? Anyone.

[Tanaara]

With the board acting up I'd give it more time before getting all impatient!

[Sionis Prioratus]

I checked just now and it actually fits... There are something like 740 words and 4,600 characters (with spaces).

You will have to do some MAJOR pruning... as the limit for proposals is 3.500 characters (with spaces). Check with Technical if you wish.

AND I did not see the privacy issue addressed at all.

I consider it good practice to post at least a link to Moderation (if not the entire text) when a ruling is asked for.

I'll post the Mods' Rulings here (red highlights are mine)

I've finished looking over your proposal as well as the two mentioned -- Right to Privacy and WA Counterterrorism Act.

In answer to the privacy issue -- seeing it from the other side: the body scanners could violate the right to privacy, especially if said scanners are used indiscriminately - which your proposal permits. It would give less than democratic nations a way out of the Right to Privacy Act by citing "security" concerns. This is one loophole that can be noted. The strip searches could also be considered an invasion of privacy. There are no stipulations on the grounds for which it occurs. There clause defining that such a search may occur when there is sufficient cause.

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of serving the law under the following circumstances:
(A)The official researching the case has filed to the appropriate authorities for a warrant permitting him the right to violate the liberties in question
(B)The official appointed to acquire the information is limited to investigate only within areas and topics which are likely to contain the necessary evidence
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object, with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of a qualified judge

However, there is also this clause, which does permit, in limited circumstances the right to invade another's privacy. If you wish for your proposal to be consistent with this act, you could add in a clause that makes it clear that such searches only occur in extenuating circumstances. In this, you can still respect the act while using its limited clause to permit searches when warranted.

In answer to the query over a potential conflict between your proposal and the Counterterrorism Act: the latter does cover the sharing and gathering of information, and leaves security implementation up to each nation. Your proposal makes the assumption that every single WA nation has the same technology.

1) REQUIRES member states to take all effective measures at their disposal, subject to the rule of law, to prevent non-state actors from using their territory to commit terrorist acts against another nation.

4) URGES member states to coordinate counter-terrorism activities, and share information and intelligence on individuals and organizations that practice terrorism, to combat its spread on an international level.

I read these two clauses as meaning each WA nation should take every step possible to prevent terrorism, and it would mean implementing their own airport security measures, not unlike those in your proposal. The measures would be suited to what each nation needs and requires to keep terrorism at bay. In this way, your proposal could be considered redundant.

Its current form needs work, but with necessary amendments to your proposal so that it respect existing acts and doesn't conflict with other acts, it could be all right.

(ard - I could use a second opinion if you think I'm off in any way. )

(ard - I could use a second opinion if you think I'm off in any way. )

Nope, I think you've called it exactly: "Privacy" doesn't kill it but "Counterterrorism" does, via duplication. However, there are work-arounds if Bergnovinaia is willing to re-write. I'll post more in the drafting thread about that.

Effectively, Kryo's ruling highlights that the Right to Privacy, as defined by the WA, is not absolute. Section 5 provides limited conditions that any proposal must satisfy if personal privacy is to be compromised.

(That is, it specifies that they must be infringements on personal privacy, not organisational or informational; insists that such infringements be in the interest of serving the law; and demands administrative oversight of the process and the right of judicial appeal against it.)

[West Newmanistan]

Ardchoille began to hint on why I will not approve this as drafted.

We simply, will not support prioritizing on method of travel over the other. Go all the way or don't go at all is my point. Rail and bus travel should also be included; especially rail. I'm not gonna go into the whole different nations have different technologies argument, because while true I'm not really interested in that.

And what about training these security officers?

[Maxaxle]

I'll vote for it if it successfully gets to the voting stages.

[New Rockport]

My nation's government cannot support this proposal as it is currently written. Airline security procedures in New Rockport are a private contractual matter between airlines and passengers.

I. Implementation of full body scanners at all security checkpoints.
1. DEFINES a full body scanner as an imaging system that is able to see through articles of clothing to identify potentially hazardous items on a person.

This amounts to a virtual strip search. Such an invasive search without both a warrant and probable cause would be unconstitutional in my country. The Federal Republic of New Rockport would sooner leave the World Assembly than comply with such a mandate.

IV Implementation of a 400 ml maximum limit on any liquid in carry-on luggage except the following:
1. Any liquid that is vital to one’s medical safety and health (i.e. Insulin for diabetics).

It is the right of an airline to determine what may be brought aboard the airline's property. The above restriction on airlines' private property rights is unacceptable.

VI. HEREBY allows the following:

1. Security personnel to confiscate any item that is suspected of being hazardous to the safety of the passengers beyond the security checkpoint in carry-on luggage and checked luggage. However, this item must be later proven to be hazardous and not something that the personnel wanted to steal from the passenger to make a profit.

The seizure of property without probable cause is unconstitutional in New Rockport. Mere suspicion is insufficient. The Federal Republic of New Rockport would sooner leave the World Assembly than comply with such a mandate.

4. To arrest and hold any person with a hazardous item in their luggage until government officials arrive to transfer the alleged attempted terrorist to a federal holding facility until the trial period.

First, why must such a suspect be held in a federal holding facility? The attempted bombing or highjacking of an intrastate flight is a state crime, not a federal crime, in New Rockport. Also, many countries have unitary governments rather than federal governments.

Second, this section would mandate the pre-trial detention of suspects, which would eliminate judges' discretion to allow these suspects to post bail. We find such a mandate to be unacceptable.

How can safety be ensured with propery privacy... I think people wouold rather give up their privacy then have their flight hijacked and flown into a building or having a bomb on a flight explode.

Well then leave the security policies and procedures up to the airlines and let the market decide.

-Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the General Assembly
Federal Republic of New Rockport

[Bergnovinaia]

Based on all of the gnerally similar comments from experience players and mods, I have decided to give up on this subject unless other nations are willing/prepared to offer a re-draft to this proposal. I really am unsure how to work out these flaws so any help will be appreciated.

[Slaytesics]

How come we don't deal with important issues like this? All the WA does is liberate and I am sick of it!

[Tergnitz]

Because the WA is based on the UN, which is inefficient and mostly powerless due to the fact that it’s an organisation which attempts to appease all parties involved, which is impossible.

In regards to this Act, as with all other Acts, the author is looking for support and only finds nit-picking criticism. Thus, we have the current WA, a body which has developed an institutionalized system that ensures that, for the most part, only low-level, vague acts with extreme popular support are passed. While Acts such as this one, which actually attempts to change the world for the better in very specific terms. An Act I’m confident would have at the very least, a majority (51% +) of acceptance rate among WA nations, are killed in committee before they can even be voted upon.

What help do you need Bergnovinaia?