[DRAFT] World Terror Prevention Organization

[Araraukar]

Would this be a suitable change to the Illegal 1.A?

OOC: Start from NOT creating any kind of "investigative body" or "force" to do anything. Start from telling the nations to do things instead. Try rewriting everything so that you don't need a committee or an international organization at all.

[Greater Imperial Rossiya]

Would this be a suitable change to the Illegal 1.A?

OOC: Start from NOT creating any kind of "investigative body" or "force" to do anything. Start from telling the nations to do things instead. Try rewriting everything so that you don't need a committee or an international organization at all.

OOC: Thats literally the whole point of the proposal to create an organization, plus if this is the only illegal thing in my proposal why rewrite the entire thing when I can just fix this one...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thats literally the whole point of the proposal to create an organization

OOC: Why? I mean, why do you insist on creating an organization, instead of getting the same effect without one? Why do you have a hard-on for the committee itself?

plus if this is the only illegal thing in my proposal why rewrite the entire thing when I can just fix this one...

Legal =/= good idea. And also conversely, good idea =/= legal. You could fix it with a rewrite to get a much better proposal.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I've not ruled either way on this because the spelling error in 1b sticks out like a sore thumb.

I also fail to see how the whole thing is not a contradiction of the ban on the WA "commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in... police actions .. under the WA banner." per article 10, GAR#2.

[Bears Armed]

I also fail to see how the whole thing is not a contradiction of the ban on the WA "commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in... police actions .. under the WA banner." per article 10, GAR#2.

OOC
Instructing member nations to take action against a type of threat, by precedent, is not a contradiction of that clause... and so, in my opinion, instructing member nations to have forces capable of taking such action should be okay as well.
This committee would help to gather information that the member nations could use for planning actions, but apparently would not actually be involved in that planning. So far, in my opinion, so good.
Helping to fund the operations? Okay, that's iffier, but inasmuch as it's funding for such forces & activity in general rather than on a case-by-case basis for specific operations it might be just about acceptable.
I had marked initially it as legal, but am going to think further about this point.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

My criticism above has not been addressed:

...Particularly when your Clause 4 states that the committee is who will determine both whether a national or international force may enter a member state's territory and whether the mission is completed to the committee's satisfaction.

And therefore I still see a big GAR #2 violation.

[Bears Armed]

My criticism above has not been addressed:

...Particularly when your Clause 4 states that the committee is who will determine both whether a national or international force may enter a member state's territory and whether the mission is completed to the committee's satisfaction.

And therefore I still see a big GAR #2 violation.

Upon consideration, agreed that that clause -- because it gives WTPO the authority to allow or forbid operations -- contradicts GAR #2 (specifically the bit about "ratifying or denouncing" such actions). Therefore, my ruling has been changed to 'illegal'.

[Greater Imperial Rossiya]

I still dont see how this is a violation of GAR#2... The WA and the WTPO doesnt directly involve itself with the police and military actions/forces, it only deals with the funding for such forces.

[Wallenburg]

1) The WTPO is literally a counterterrorism force, which violates GAR#2's prohibition on WA military activity.
2) It requires member states to establish militaries and police forces, which violates GAR#2's prohibition on the organization of militaries and police forces.
3) It directs member states' militaries and police forces to engage in counterterrorism, against GAR#2's prohibition on WA ratification of military or police action.

[Bears Armed]

1) The WTPO is literally a counterterrorism force, which violates GAR#2's prohibition on WA military activity.
2) It requires member states to establish militaries and police forces, which violates GAR#2's prohibition on the organization of militaries and police forces.
3) It directs member states' militaries and police forces to engage in counterterrorism, against GAR#2's prohibition on WA ratification of military or police action.

OOC
1. I agree that the 'Detain and 'Interrogate' functions cross the line. If those were to be removed then WTPO would be purely an investigative body, rather than one that engages in field operations, which would be okay under my interpretation of GAR#2's ban on WA involvement in 'police actions' as meaning 'police actions' in the [used in RL] "military actions against non-state actors" sense rather than as meaning "anything that a police force could be expected to do"... but, going by precedent, other GenSec members would out-vote me on this point.
2) Requiring that member nations have forces does not constitute "organising" such forces... otherwise every resolution that expects member forces to enforce it in ways that would [implicitly or explicitly] require a police force would run into legality problems in that respect.
3) i interpret that clause as being a prohibition on the WA authorising any specific operation, such as "regime change in nation 'X' ", for example, or "forced disarmament of nation 'Y' ", not as a ban on it authorising or even requiring member nations to take action against particular types of problems. Otherwise, again , any resolution that requires enforcement in situations where police would [implicitly or explicitly] be needed would fail this test. As precedent, I cite GAR #20 'Suppress International Piracy' which was actually challenged on this basis -- maybe at the GA stage, or maybe during its earlier career as a NS-UN proposal, I don't remember which -- but was declared 'Legal' by the Mods. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

[Araraukar]

but was declared 'Legal' by the Mods.

OOC: Which, time and again, we are reminded means nothing when it comes to GenSec decisions.

[Greater Imperial Rossiya]

1. I agree that the 'Detain and 'Interrogate' functions cross the line.

OOC
If you could show me where the 'Detain' and 'Interrogate' functions are still in the current draft of the document that would be wonderful, I am either blind or you are mistaken that it is in the current draft.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

1. I agree that the 'Detain and 'Interrogate' functions cross the line.

OOC
If you could show me where the 'Detain' and 'Interrogate' functions are still in the current draft of the document that would be wonderful, I am either blind or you are mistaken that it is in the current draft.

OOC:

Now therefore, to be enacted by this General Assembly of the World Assembly, are as follows:

1. Creation of the WTPO, or the World Terror Prevention Organization, which duties would include:
   
   1. Detention of captured Terrorist Combatants.
   2. Interrogation of Terrorist Combatants.

...

You still have it as literally the first operative clause. Your snark is unwarranted and not appreciated.

[Greater Imperial Rossiya]

OOC
If you could show me where the 'Detain' and 'Interrogate' functions are still in the current draft of the document that would be wonderful, I am either blind or you are mistaken that it is in the current draft.

OOC:

Now therefore, to be enacted by this General Assembly of the World Assembly, are as follows:

1. Creation of the WTPO, or the World Terror Prevention Organization, which duties would include:
   
   1. Detention of captured Terrorist Combatants.
   2. Interrogation of Terrorist Combatants.

...

You still have it as literally the first operative clause. Your snark is unwarranted and not appreciated.

OOC
I did say the 'current draft', no?
But I will give you that I guess some people would miss the spoilers.

Apologies to you both, I meant no disrespect.

And the first comment has been updated to better avoid these situations.

[Kenmoria]

“The current proposal is still a bit questionable given that the WTPO can investigate actions by individuals and send teams of people to investigate potential crimes. That to me sounds very much like a police force.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, would you explain the purpose of the WTPO watchlist? What goals does it advance? As this is currently written, the watchlist sounds like a buzzword included by a committee member with a lot of spare time to watch bad TV shows. What does the watchlist accomplish, and why is it necessary? Also, why wouldn't nations be taken off it once they make their way down the fear chart from Severe to Low? Once Severe, always Severe? That makes no sense."

[Greater Imperial Rossiya]

“The current proposal is still a bit questionable given that the WTPO can investigate actions by individuals and send teams of people to investigate potential crimes. That to me sounds very much like a police force.”

The WTPO would investigate potential threats, and only that. The WTPO would not be Policing the Nation, it would only be investigating the threats and giving that information to the Nation they are investigating.

"Ambassador, would you explain the purpose of the WTPO watchlist? What goals does it advance? As this is currently written, the watchlist sounds like a buzzword included by a committee member with a lot of spare time to watch bad TV shows. What does the watchlist accomplish, and why is it necessary? Also, why wouldn't nations be taken off it once they make their way down the fear chart from Severe to Low? Once Severe, always Severe? That makes no sense."

The Classification Directory would serve as a way of protecting tourists as they would travel into said Nations and it serves as a way for the WTPO to determine which Nations would need more funding for their troops and to have Investigators sent to better help prevent acts of Terror in said Nation, however Nations that make strives to prevent and protect themselves against Terrorism would be taken down in the Directories rankings which was an oversight on my part not to directly mention this, as for taking Nations off the Directory it would not better serve the public to know if the Nation was safe for travel or not.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I did say the 'current draft', no?
But I will give you that I guess some people would miss the spoilers.

OOC: Given that there's no draft in the first post of the thread, you can be assumed to not have a current draft.

[Kenmoria]

“I think there a few problems with your definitions. Firstly, they are traditionally put with the active clauses rather than the preambulatory ones as they have a demonstratable effect on the proposal. However, one a slightly more significant note, you have a terrorist as someone who ‘financially or in other ways supports terrorism’ or commutes terrorist acts or joins a terroristic organisation.

My issue is that this would appear to include merely mental support for what terrorists are doing, rather than actual public or even verbal support. Put simply, if someone has, for a few months, an idea that terrorists may be in the right, but do not even write this in a diary, then they do not deserve to be held in the same way as suicide bombers.”

[Greater Imperial Rossiya]

“I think there a few problems with your definitions. Firstly, they are traditionally put with the active clauses rather than the preambulatory ones as they have a demonstratable effect on the proposal. However, one a slightly more significant note, you have a terrorist as someone who ‘financially or in other ways supports terrorism’ or commutes terrorist acts or joins a terroristic organisation.

My issue is that this would appear to include merely mental support for what terrorists are doing, rather than actual public or even verbal support. Put simply, if someone has, for a few months, an idea that terrorists may be in the right, but do not even write this in a diary, then they do not deserve to be held in the same way as suicide bombers.”

It only states that physically doing something to support terrorism would make them be considered a terrorist themselves, a mental thought wouldn't physically help a terrorist/terrorist organization.

[Kenmoria]

“I think there a few problems with your definitions. Firstly, they are traditionally put with the active clauses rather than the preambulatory ones as they have a demonstratable effect on the proposal. However, one a slightly more significant note, you have a terrorist as someone who ‘financially or in other ways supports terrorism’ or commutes terrorist acts or joins a terroristic organisation.

My issue is that this would appear to include merely mental support for what terrorists are doing, rather than actual public or even verbal support. Put simply, if someone has, for a few months, an idea that terrorists may be in the right, but do not even write this in a diary, then they do not deserve to be held in the same way as suicide bombers.”

It only states that physically doing something to support terrorism would make them be considered a terrorist themselves, a mental thought wouldn't physically help a terrorist/terrorist organization.

(OOC: No, it doesn’t. Here is the clause, copy-pasted, from the current draft:

Defining a Terrorist as a person who financially or in other ways supports terrorism, engages in terrorist actions themselves, or are a member of a confirmed Terrorist Organization(s),

There is no restriction on the level of support that must be given, merely that it includes financial means.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Please leave your current draft posted in the OP by itself so that quoting it, and it alone, isn't such a pain in the ass.

"Ambassador, would you explain the purpose of the WTPO watchlist? What goals does it advance? As this is currently written, the watchlist sounds like a buzzword included by a committee member with a lot of spare time to watch bad TV shows. What does the watchlist accomplish, and why is it necessary? Also, why wouldn't nations be taken off it once they make their way down the fear chart from Severe to Low? Once Severe, always Severe? That makes no sense."

The Classification Directory would serve as a way of protecting tourists as they would travel into said Nations and it serves as a way for the WTPO to determine which Nations would need more funding for their troops and to have Investigators sent to better help prevent acts of Terror in said Nation, however Nations that make strives to prevent and protect themselves against Terrorism would be taken down in the Directories rankings which was an oversight on my part not to directly mention this, as for taking Nations off the Directory it would not better serve the public to know if the Nation was safe for travel or not.

"That's not what your proposal says, Ambassador. I quote:

[*]Create a Classification Directory for all Member Nations, ranging from:

1. Severe: Nations with this Classification are in immediate threat from Terrorist Organizations.
   
   Nations with this classification will:
   
   
   1. Receive additional teams of WTPO Investigators,
   2. Receive additional funding from the WTPO,
   3. Be required to have constant communication with the WTPO, and,
   4. Will be placed on a permanent WTPO watchlist.
2. Strong: Nations with this Classification are possibly in immediate threat from Terrorist Organizations.
   
   Nations with this classification will:
   
   
   1. Receive additional teams of WTPO investigators,
   2. Be required to have constant communication with the WTPO, and,
   3. Will be placed on a WTPO watchlist.
3. Mild: Nations with this Classification are not in immediate threat but has had possible Terrorist Activity in the recent past.
   
   Nations with this classification will:
   
   
   1. Receive no additional funding,
   2. Be mandated to contact the WTPO of any potential terrorist activity, and,
   3. Will be placed onto a WTPO watchlist.
4. Low: Nations with this Classification are in no threat or has had any possible Terrorist Activity in the recent past.
   
   Nations with this classification will:
   
   
   1. Receive no additional funding, and,
   2. Receive no additional support from the WTPO.

"I say again: what is the point of making nations classified 'severe' subject to a permanent stigma, no matter how successful they are in cleaning up their problems? Why are nations with a slightly smaller terrorism problem exempt from that stigma when they fix their terror issues, but these 'severe' countries will never come off the list? What's the point?