[Draft] Repeal "A Ban On Forced Disappearances"

[The Dourian Embassy]

The Original Resolution.

I've been pretty annoyed by this particular resolution. Any resolution that seeks to do something but completely fails to do so is at worst a blocker, and at best useless. This resolution only bans a very selective type of enforced disappearances. I'm actually also a bit amazed the secretariat didn't nail it for duplication with WAR#67 Habeas Corpus. Regardless, it's a needless resolution that causes more harm than good, so it has to go.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the potential threat to human rights that enforced disappearances represent,

Accepting that WAR#84 seeks to ban such actions,

Saddened however, that a government can through inaction, still allow such actions to take place,

Regretting that enforced disappearances can also occur for reasons that are not motivated by political interests, and are therefore not "political tactics",

Alarmed by the fact that WAR#84 fails to address any of these concerns,

Hereby repeals WAR#84, "A Ban on Forced Disappearances".

Lord knows Douria's a bit rusty, but we're back in legislation for at least a little while, and I feel like doing some clean up. Lets improve the draft where it needs it, and get started.

OOC Note: I'm also fully aware that I use the term "enforced disappearances" instead of "forced disappearances". That's mostly out of preference to the current International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Which actually tries to ban this horrific practice.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper is pleased to see the honoured ambassador from The Dourian Embassy again. Again, I think the repeal is something we could look into if we could work on a replacement which is inspired by the convention concerned if we have the time. Any thoughts?

[The Dourian Embassy]

Ms. Harper is pleased to see the honoured ambassador from The Dourian Embassy again. Again, I think the repeal is something we could look into if we could work on a replacement which is inspired by the convention concerned if we have the time. Any thoughts?

If there is a need beyond WA# 67, "Habeus Corpus", I would be happy to see you draft a replacement.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: 'Habeus Corpus' wouldn't apply if the people in question, instead of being detained indefinitely, were killed shortly after being seized by the state's agents...

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: 'Habeus Corpus' wouldn't apply if the people in question, instead of being detained indefinitely, were killed shortly after being seized by the state's agents...

OOC: Then if one wanted, they could legislate that. The general problem is that since compliance is mandatory in NationStates, the concept of using enforced disappearances to get around resolutions guaranteeing sapient rights is moot. However, a more general "Rights of the Detained" might be a better idea. I would certainly support the concept and further discussion of a replacement, but the meat of this proposed repeal doesn't include the concept of a replacement. I might support one, but this thread isn't about that.

It's about repealing a flawed resolution. Unless everyone is happy with my first draft, in which case fine.

[Unibot]

Any action by a government is political, if you want a proposal banning forced disappearances by non-state actors, this is generally not considered a 'forced disappearance' but some form of kidnapping, without the intention of a ransom. Your energy would better be spent on writing a new proposal to deal with this additional issue, if you feel national legislation is not doing enough to prevent this kind of crime. The original proposal's narrowness was its strength -- it was focused --it was not trying to cover two different dilemmas with similar characteristics.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador, Ms. Harper notes that enforced disappearances can be performed by corporations as well.

[Unibot]

Honoured ambassador, Ms. Harper notes that enforced disappearances can be performed by corporations as well.

This was apart of the orginal discussion for the proposal, in the orginal debate we decided that it actually would be defined alongside non-state actors imposing disapperances. Do note, that through inaction, the government is sponsoring an entity.. so, your interpretation of the definition isn't holding its own weight too.

[The Dourian Embassy]

This was apart of the orginal discussion for the proposal, in the orginal debate we decided that it actually would be defined alongside non-state actors imposing disapperances. Do note, that through inaction, the government is sponsoring an entity.. so, your interpretation of the definition isn't holding its own weight too.

Inaction is not sponsorship, and no reasonable person could construe it as such. Inaction is not support. Inaction is inaction.

I also care a lot less about what you decided in the original debate. The resolution says what it says, and a corporation is not barred from these actions in your resolution.

[Unibot]

The intended follow-up to this resolution, with non-state actors, was particularly contriversial and I didn't pursue it further past a drafting stage, mostly because people convinced me it wasn't needed. I'd invite others to try to develop their own resolution with that objective in mind.. instead of cursing focused legislation with a sort of "magic proposal" in mind that authors today are generally opposed to anyway.

[Unibot]

I also care a lot less about what you decided in the original debate. The resolution says what it says, and a corporation is not barred from these actions in your resolution.

Ahuh, so? We decided it was worthy of its own resolution because it was more contreversial of a topic then state forced disapperances. In other words, get the non-contreversial topic passed first.

[Unibot]

Inaction is not sponsorship, and no reasonable person could construe it as such. Inaction is not support. Inaction is inaction.

Excuse me, god, for providing a contary opinion to your all-mighty wisdom, but if someone is delibertly ignorning something, with the goal in mind to allow something they'd like to continue, that would appear to be sponsorship.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Not entirely sure why that required three separate posts instead of just one, but lets address some stuff.

The intended follow-up to this resolution, with non-state actors, was particularly contriversial and I didn't pursue it further past a drafting stage, mostly because people convinced me it wasn't needed. I'd invite others to try to develop their own resolution with that objective in mind.. instead of cursing focused legislation with a sort of "magic proposal" in mind that authors today are generally opposed to anyway.

I'm confused, did you want to pass a real resolution banning enforced disappearances, or just get something passed?

Excuse me, god, for providing a contary opinion to your all-mighty wisdom, but if someone is delibertly ignorning something, with the goal in mind to allow something they'd like to continue, that would appear to be sponsorship.

I'm sorry, you've misread my intentions and reasoning. You have a certain and unquestionable right to your own opinions, and that is not something I'm willing to argue over. You do not, however, have a right to your own facts. The definition of sponsorship in no way, fashion, or form fits what you have described. Inaction by the state that allows such to go on is not covered by your resolution. If you're unwilling to admit a failing in your resolution, that is fine. I am not going to accept that as the way it is, and move on though.

Lets assume for a moment none of that matters and ask you this. Do you accept that a state might have reasons to force someone's disappearance that are not political in nature?

[Unibot]

Do you accept that a state might have reasons to force someone's disappearance that are not political in nature?

I think that you mean the government, not the state -- and the government's reasons to force someone's disappearance is always political, it's a political body, if they force some's disappearance because they don't like his hair color, that's a political move and a bizarre type of eugenics, but nevertheless, political in nature. A government is 'political', it embodies the 'political culture' of the nation.

I'm confused, did you want to pass a real resolution banning enforced disappearances, or just get something passed?

Lovely deflection, and implicit ad hominem attack. I stated it earlier, my original resolution was banning both apolitical kidnapping and political forced disappearances, but with the controversy of the former, I focused on the latter. Getting regulation on the books for at least the latter to establish a precedent for the former was my goal, and a wise friend at the time, and AO member who will remain anonymous (to save him of the embarrassment of being connected to me, er.. AO's incarnation of Satan, which is the best ego-trip of all.) gave me the advice to focus on the political as opposed to the apolitical, and to attack them in separate proposals. As I said, I tried both proposals, this one got off the ground, the other burned in flames. With my background in the WA, I can confidently say that getting more resolutions to add to my self-esteem, is not taking high priority on my list of things to do, I have AO to help with my self-esteem.

Also, please note that enforced disappearances and forced disappearances is the same phrase, just one is more popular in American and the other is generally European. The word "forced" and "enforced" are the adjectival past principles of the verbs, "force" and "enforce", "force" is used 'to make something happen or make someone do something difficult, unpleasant or unusual, especially by threatening or not offering the possibility of choice', and "enforce" generally means to compel obedience to the law, although some dictionaries can confuse its meaning with "reinforce". Because the use of "force" makes more sense than "enforced" according to most definitions of "force", I preferred that version. I get the feeling that the two reasons you're trying to repealing this resolution for -- based on your comments in the AO thread -- are... (1) I don't like Unibot. (2) He wrote "forced" when he really meant, "enforced", according to the UN. Both reasons seem sort of trivial to base a repeal on, if you ask me or anyone not from AO, or happens not to be delusional.

Although the "I don't like Unibot" type of proposal has historically been successful, I do think its sort of rich you to be lecturing me about ethical standards for politicians, when you're pursuing a repeal based on two personal preferences and a few shoddy arguments like "this could have banned any kind of disappearance from corporate kidnapping to magic tricks! But instead all we got was a focused piece of legislation!" . If it's not about a personal grudge, I've given you a solution to your supposed concerns,

"7. Welcoming the addition of further legislation on the subject by member states, [..]"
^^^ From the resolution.

Make your own goddamn proposal, don't repeal your precedent, because if you ever do try and pass some legislation banning apolitical 'enforced disappearances' (and I'm not even convinced that you give a shit about kidnapped people, this seems to be entirely a personal attack), you're going to want a precedent to back you up .

[The Dourian Embassy]

I think that you mean the government, not the state -- and the government's reasons to force someone's disappearance is always political, it's a political body, if they force some's disappearance because they don't like his hair color, that's a political move and a bizarre type of eugenics, but nevertheless, political in nature. A government is 'political', it embodies the 'political culture' of the nation.

A governments reasons are not always political. If it can be termed another way, that reasoning wins out. An economic reason to make someone disappear isn't both political and economic, simply because the government is carrying it out. Political prisoners are made to disappear and that is a political tactic. Something else is... something else.

Lovely deflection, and implicit ad hominem attack. I stated it earlier, my original resolution was banning both apolitical kidnapping and political forced disappearances, but with the controversy of the former, I focused on the latter. Getting regulation on the books for at least the latter to establish a precedent for the former was my goal, and a wise friend at the time, and AO member who will remain anonymous (to save him of the embarrassment of being connected to me, er.. AO's incarnation of Satan, which is the best ego-trip of all.) gave me the advice to focus on the political as opposed to the apolitical, and to attack them in separate proposals. As I said, I tried both proposals, this one got off the ground, the other burned in flames. With my background in the WA, I can confidently say that getting more resolutions to add to my self-esteem, is not taking high priority on my list of things to do, I have AO to help with my self-esteem.

Also, please note that enforced disappearances and forced disappearances is the same phrase, just one is more popular in American and the other is generally European. The word "forced" and "enforced" are the adjectival past principles of the verbs, "force" and "enforce", "force" is used 'to make something happen or make someone do something difficult, unpleasant or unusual, especially by threatening or not offering the possibility of choice', and "enforce" generally means to compel obedience to the law, although some dictionaries can confuse its meaning with "reinforce". Because the use of "force" makes more sense than "enforced" according to most definitions of "force", I preferred that version. I get the feeling that the two reasons you're trying to repealing this resolution for -- based on your comments in the AO thread -- are... (1) I don't like Unibot. (2) He wrote "forced" when he really meant, "enforced", according to the UN. Both reasons seem sort of trivial to base a repeal on, if you ask me or anyone not from AO, or happens not to be delusional.

Although the "I don't like Unibot" type of proposal has historically been successful, I do think its sort of rich you to be lecturing me about ethical standards for politicians, when you're pursuing a repeal based on two personal preferences and a few shoddy arguments like "this could have banned any kind of disappearance from corporate kidnapping to magic tricks! But instead all we got was a focused piece of legislation!" . If it's not about a personal grudge, I've given you a solution to your supposed concerns,

"7. Welcoming the addition of further legislation on the subject by member states, [..]"
^^^ From the resolution.

Make your own goddamn proposal, don't repeal your precedent, because if you ever do try and pass some legislation banning apolitical 'enforced disappearances' (and I'm not even convinced that you give a shit about kidnapped people, this seems to be entirely a personal attack), you're going to want a precedent to back you up .

Again, I apologize that you've misunderstood the situation. This may bother you or not, but I don't even know you. I've been out of international politics for quite some time. I have a long history of opposing unnecessary and flawed resolutions such as this one. That is my only reason for doing this. I've often left replacements to others, and provided my help in their drafting. There are people you can ask about this, who've seen me do so. People who are not in the AO as well, since my region seems to offend you.

If you'd like to replace this flawed resolution with something superior, I will help you with that. I'm unsure of how to put this in a way that is not condescending, but here it is:

Not everything is about you.

[Unibot]

Not everything is about you.

Exerts from various posts in your AO drafting thread (from various people -- not necessarily you, Douria)...

I personally don't like almost anything Unibot's passed. No offense to him but everything he's passed seems needlessly complicated and overreaching. If I can get things going, I plan on repealing a whole mess of resolutions, but this one seemed a good starting point. Ironically enough for being too weak.

Watch out, "WA Numeration and Units Act"!

I'm definitely not a repeal effort [presumably, the author meant to write something else], but I'm in favor of almost anything that will reduce the size of Uni's .... ego. And even if this somehow inflates his self-importance (almost any mention of him seems to do that), I'm in favor all the same.

At-least my penis will remain safe from this ... 'reduction'.

It's good because it sticks it to Unibot(as that is the actual term for the thing he's banning) but bad because it might confuse people

Factually inaccurate, but nevertheless I appreciate that you feel the need to stick things at me. Poking is bad, though, I'm not the Pillsbury Doe-Boy.

Unibot is freaking out in the NS thread for this. It's quite disturbing.

.. it seems just a tad like a personal attack. If you do eventually repeal the proposal, I'd be on board to draft a proposal that addresses your concerns (minus the "Enforced" preference), because that's what I do, I add notches to my belt and write my name on things.. but I don't really see how your concerns are very pressing -- a decision for an 'economic matter' by a government is still political.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm unsure how 'government inaction' is a problem, here. The resolution requires that any previous cases of forced disappearances be reversed. I'm also not seeing how the fact that the resolution only covers political reasons is a legitimate argument for repeal. There is nothing stopping anybody from writing a resolution banning non-political forced disappearances.

Now, Glen-Rhodes voted against the resolution, but this repeal isn't acceptable. Our concerns were with the World Assembly legislating on clandestine operations in general. Our position still remains that the World Assembly has no reason for intruding on these very sensitive organizations.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: For what it's worth, I've always heard "forced disappearance." Quibbling over the differences between American and British English is pretty useless.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

OOC: I don't know who is passing you information, but they've edited it just a bit. I'm not impugning your morals here, just whoever is passing you information. That said, I'm not hurt by this, just confused. Some of the editing didn't even change the content of the post... just the wording. Regardless, even from what I've seen, nothing I've said has insulted you. I did mention your freak out earlier(the three posts in a row, or the rambling one saying that this was some sort of concerted effort to hurt you). I suppose since you've quoted me from offsite, it's alright to mention that here. What was up with that?

As for "enforced" vs. "forced"... I'm an American and I have no idea which side of the Atlantic you're accusing me of taking the side of. I prefer the term "enforced" as the current definitive law in international politics uses that term. That document also has a great definition, unlike yours.

Edit: To reply to Glen-Rhodes

I'm unsure how 'government inaction' is a problem, here. The resolution requires that any previous cases of forced disappearances be reversed. I'm also not seeing how the fact that the resolution only covers political reasons is a legitimate argument for repeal. There is nothing stopping anybody from writing a resolution banning non-political forced disappearances.

Now, Glen-Rhodes voted against the resolution, but this repeal isn't acceptable. Our concerns were with the World Assembly legislating on clandestine operations in general. Our position still remains that the World Assembly has no reason for intruding on these very sensitive organizations.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: For what it's worth, I've always heard "forced disappearance." Quibbling over the differences between American and British English is pretty useless.

It requires the reversal of government sponsored disappearances, with government records being opened, or the publication of the whereabouts and circumstances of death. Given that non-governmental agencies can be doing this freely FOR a government, I'd suggest that the government may not be capable of reversing things it doesn't have any knowledge of. The problem is the government not taking active steps to stop the disappearances in the first place. What would we call the supplemental legislation, "A Ban On Forced Disappearances"? When a piece of legislation does not do what it claims too, that is a bad law.

Back in the times of the UN, did we to simply pass a law that danced around "End Slavery" and fixed it's many many shortcomings? No, we repealed the old document and passed a new one. That is what should be done here. We have to remain committed to effective legislation. Half measures are a waste of everyone's time.

[Unibot]

OOC: I don't know who is passing you information, but they've edited it just a bit. I'm not impugning your morals here, just whoever is passing you information. That said, I'm not hurt by this, just confused. Some of the editing didn't even change the content of the post... just the wording.

? Its an open thread (for now). I copy and pasted it.

What was up with that?

Err.. well it wouldn't be the first time an author has submitted a proposal as a personal attack to me -- and AO isn't exactly a region that is full of my best friends, additionally AO members have been recently drafting proposals just to troll players like me, seemingly at least.

As for "enforced" vs. "forced"... I'm an American and I have no idea which side of the Atlantic you're accusing me of taking the side of. I prefer the term "enforced" as the current definitive law in international politics uses that term. That document also has a great definition, unlike yours.

The reason why people commonly used "Forced" as opposed to "Enforced" is because if one looks at the verbs, Force and Enforce, you're really committing a Forced Disappearance not an 'Enforced' Disappearance. But that's such a technical detail that I don't really care either way. Also "Enforced" would have been over the word count for the title.

When a piece of legislation does not do what it claims too, that is a bad law.

But it does, its just its too focused for your liking.

Back in the times of the UN, did we to simply pass a law that danced around "End Slavery" and fixed it's many many shortcomings? No, we repealed the old document and passed a new one. That is what should be done here. We have to remain committed to effective legislation. Half measures are a waste of everyone's time.

Effective legislation is not a bloated text covering a multitude of topics.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: I don't know who is passing you information, but they've edited it just a bit. I'm not impugning your morals here, just whoever is passing you information. That said, I'm not hurt by this, just confused. Some of the editing didn't even change the content of the post... just the wording.

? Its an open thread (for now). I copy and pasted it.

Again, I'm not accusing you of anything, but uh... you should really look at the actual thread. Why'd you edit it? There was nothing wrong with the original wording, yet you took what I said and edited it. You didn't even make it worse, you just changed it. That's just weird.

In actual and relevant news: I don't expect your legislation to cover a multitude of topics, just the actual topic at hand.

[Unibot]

? Its an open thread (for now). I copy and pasted it.

Again, I'm not accusing you of anything, but uh... you should really look at the actual thread. Why'd you edit it? There was nothing wrong with the original wording, yet you took what I said and edited it. You didn't even make it worse, you just changed it. That's just weird.

Why did you edit your wording slightly? All I did was copy and paste, I wouldn't change what you wrote, and if I was going to I'd add something more incriminating... the things that are different are like "if I can get the ball rolling" isn't there now when it was, and the "stick it to Unibot" isn't there now, and I know that was there. I just wish Google had cached your page, so I could catch you in the act of trying to clean your tracks. Next time keep your attacks to the private threads, I don't read those, for obvious reasons.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Why did you edit your wording slightly? All I did was copy and paste, I wouldn't change what you wrote, and if I was going to I'd add something more incriminating... the things that are different are like "if I can get the ball rolling" isn't there now when it was, and the "stick it to Unibot" isn't there now, and I know that was there. I just wish Google had cached your page, so I could catch you in the act of trying to clean your tracks. Next time keep your attacks to the private threads, I don't read those, for obvious reasons.

Ok, what? I've made no attacks on you and you and I both know it.

I'm done with your craziness. I was listening to you for a while since you were the author of the original resolution, but you've gone off the edge with this random stuff you edited. You're the one that posted the edited bits. It's a public thread, and anyone can see clearly what the original posts say.

I'm just going to politely ignore addressing you specifically in this thread from now on, since most of your rebuttals boil down to "nuh uh", it shouldn't be that hard.

[Unibot]

Why did you edit your wording slightly? All I did was copy and paste, I wouldn't change what you wrote, and if I was going to I'd add something more incriminating... the things that are different are like "if I can get the ball rolling" isn't there now when it was, and the "stick it to Unibot" isn't there now, and I know that was there. I just wish Google had cached your page, so I could catch you in the act of trying to clean your tracks. Next time keep your attacks to the private threads, I don't read those, for obvious reasons.

Ok, what? I've made no attacks on you and you and I both know it.

I'm done with your craziness. I was listening to you for a while since you were the author of the original resolution, but you've gone off the edge with this random stuff you edited. You're the one that posted the edited bits. It's a public thread, and anyone can see clearly what the original posts say.

I'm just going to politely ignore addressing you specifically in this thread from now on, since most of your rebuttals boil down to "nuh uh", it shouldn't be that hard.

Well there isn't much to prove that you did edit your comments other than the fact that it would be pointless to change small phrases of your posts, when people could just have fact checked and found me lieing. Thanks for proving to me that you're only here to troll me, that's good, 'cause I wasn't sure until you blatantly changed your posts to try to call into question my integrity.

Oh, and "nuh uh".

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm done with your craziness. I was listening to you for a while since you were the author of the original resolution, but you've gone off the edge with this random stuff you edited. You're the one that posted the edited bits. It's a public thread, and anyone can see clearly what the original posts say.

OOC: I probably shouldn't get in the middle of this little fight, but I can attest that you certainly did edit out parts of your posts on the AO forums. The quotes that Unibot gave certainly were in the thread. It's pretty dishonest to say otherwise. Those quotes and edits in the thread proves to me that the entire intent of this latest AO excursion was just a well-disguised troll. That seems like a developing pattern.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Faliksa Abertron rose to address the drafting committee.

Unless there have been revisions, I honestly could not be bothered reading the transcript arguing points that are not germane to the issue of repealing this resolution. I can state that the Monikian WA Mission Delegation would proudly support the repeal.

That said there may be a question on whether or not a replacement is necessary. And if it is deemed that a replacement is necessary, the legislation would need to cover both governmental and non-governmental organizations; such as Organized Crime Syndicates, Corporations, Paramilitaries, and so forth.