[DRAFT] Security of Civilian Aircraft

[United Massachusetts]

Security of Civilian Aircraft
Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

The General Assembly,

ENTHUSED by the vast potential of civilian aviation to facilitate commerce, cultural interaction, and dialogue among nations, values which this Assembly has always stood for,

SADDENED by the deplorable acts of terror which some use to instill fear in people, particularly in the air,

THUS AWARE of the heightened level security needed on aircrafts in order to preserve the security of all on said vehicles,

WISHING to provide said safety in a reasonable and non-obtrusive manner,

REJECTING the belief that the right to board a plane is an inalienable one, as member nations have a legitimate obligation to prevent security threats from entering civilian aircrafts,

YEARNING, in providing said security, to protect the rights of nations to their own airspace,

SECTION 1: Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

• database as an easily accessible set of organized data and information stored on a computer
• probable cause as a reasonable and evident basis for a belief,
• civilian aircraft as any aircraft not used for military, defense, or policing purposes,
• terrorism as the unlawful use of force and violence by private actors in order to pursue a political purpose or otherwise instill fear within other sapient beings,

SECTION 2: Tasks the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO), herein referred to as the Organization, with the compilation and maintenance of a database of known threats to the safety of civilian aircraft, subject to the following restrictions on this task, as well as any reasonable measures which the Organization finds necessary in order to pursue their investigation:

• That probable cause exists, after thorough investigation, to believe that an individual has committed an act of terror, or otherwise poses a grave danger to the security of another passenger
• That, in the eyes of the Organization, it is highly plausible that the individual has the intent to commit an act of terrorism,
• And that actions taken towards compilation and maintenance of said database remain subject to the mandates of any prior, unrepealed national legislation regarding discrimination,

SECTION 3: Forbids member nations from knowingly granting an individual found in said database a passport or entry onto an internationally-bound civilian aircraft,

SECTION 4: Mandates the Organization to inform individuals placed on said database of their presence on the list and the reasons for their placement, as well as to inform individuals of any changes in said status, to as much detail as can be provided whilst ensuring the integrity of any other ongoing investigations,

SECTION 5: Allows individuals in said database, or their legal representatives, upon discovering their presence therein, to file appeal before their respective nation's civil courts, or the equivalent thereof, in order to remove themselves from the list,

SECTION 6: And urges member nations to cooperate with the Organization in order to find these threats and forbids member nations from knowingly obstructing or otherwise tampering with the compilation or maintenance of the aforementioned database,

SECTION 7: Clarifies that the Organization shall not involve itself directly in the investigation of suspected threat-- the responsibility falls on member nations and any other relevant actors, be they private or public.

EDIT ONE: Clarified the responsibilities for compilation, as well as the rules regarding discrimination, per Essu Betti.
EDIT TWO: Added an appeal system, per Covenstone.
EDIT THREE: Changed ban to only international flights, per Covenstone
EDIT FOUR: Forbade GESTAPO from conducting investigations, per Covenstone
EDIT FIVE: Added the yearning clause in the preamble, per United Massachusetts
EDIT SIX: Minimized references to GESTAPO, per Thermodolia

[Essu Beti]

Iksana shakes his head. "How about not. I know it says it's subject to any legislation covering discrimination, but we all know that's not gonna happen. Nations will just say "oh, it's only a coincidence that all our potential terrorists are ethnic/religious minorities or are the opposite political party of the current leader." Anyway, my nation wouldn't be able to enforce this because we caregorically refuse to have mandatory ID cards, which this sounds like it would need in order to be enforceable."

[United Massachusetts]

Iksana shakes his head. "How about not. I know it says it's subject to any legislation covering discrimination, but we all know that's not gonna happen. Nations will just say "oh, it's only a coincidence that all our potential terrorists are ethnic/religious minorities or are the opposite political party of the current leader." Anyway, my nation wouldn't be able to enforce this because we caregorically refuse to have mandatory ID cards, which this sounds like it would need in order to be enforceable."

"Sir, every resolution must be interpreted in good-faith. Such is the presumption of the World Assembly. As such, it makes no sense to claim that member nations are able to implement such type of non enforcement. Furthermore, every nation is already required to act in a non-discriminatory way by the Charter on Civil Rights."

"Secondly, ID cards are only one method of identification. Surely Essu Betti requires passports for foreign flights or some form of identification for domestic ones, no?

[Essu Beti]

"No. Well, we don't have an airport so it would be no anyway. But we don't ask ID for boat rides, we don't issue passports, and we don't even have drivers licenses.

And well, I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but there are some nations here who seem to think 'good faith' means 'weasel out of it,' going by their own comments."

[United Massachusetts]

"No. Well, we don't have an airport so it would be no anyway. But we don't ask ID for boat rides, we don't issue passports, and we don't even have drivers licenses.

And well, I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but there are some nations here who seem to think 'good faith' means 'weasel out of it,' going by their own comments."

"If you don't have an airport, this resolution doesn't concern you--am I correct?

As for your second point, this is a concern of mine. However, my intent was that GESTAPO was supposed to do the compiliation. As I use the term "national law", when it should be international law, I'll try to fix it without making a House of Cards violation."

---

EDIT, OOC: Done.
IC: "Do you have any unaddressed concerns?"

[Essu Beti]

"It'll concern us if we ever get to the point of being able to build one. So why not figure these things out in advance, yeah? And it will definitely affect us if we get to the point of being able to do some touring ourselves instead of just sending out the occasional charity-reliant missionary."

[Covenstone]

I have one or two questions :-

1. Can a nation submit a name to GESTAPO from only their nation's citizens, or can they submit one from ANY nation's citizens?
2. Do you have to provide proof that this person is likely to be a danger to their fellow passengers, or is submitting the name proof enough?
3. If we have to tell people we suspect them of being a terrorist, isn't that going to screw up our investigation of them being a terrorist somewhat? It is very hard to covertly surveill someone if THEY KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT!
4. Does the list get reviewed at any point in time, or does it just stay that way for ever?
5. Does this list only apply to international flights?
6. Can someone appeal to get their name taken off the list?
7. Can people get put on the list for other reasons than terrorism? (Being a psychotic axe murderer, for example? Or a pyromaniac?)

Okay, so it turns out I have seven questions. Sorry.

8. Why is GESTAPO investigating whether people are terrorists or not? Surely that is way beyond their original remit?

Thought of another. Ooops!

[United Massachusetts]

I have one or two questions :-

1. Can a nation submit a name to GESTAPO from only their nation's citizens, or can they submit one from ANY nation's citizens?
2. Do you have to provide proof that this person is likely to be a danger to their fellow passengers, or is submitting the name proof enough?
3. If we have to tell people we suspect them of being a terrorist, isn't that going to screw up our investigation of them being a terrorist somewhat? It is very hard to covertly surveill someone if THEY KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT!
4. Does the list get reviewed at any point in time, or does it just stay that way for ever?
5. Does this list only apply to international flights?
6. Can someone appeal to get their name taken off the list?
7. Can people get put on the list for other reasons than terrorism? (Being a psychotic axe murderer, for example? Or a pyromaniac?)

Okay, so it turns out I have seven questions. Sorry.

8. Why is GESTAPO investigating whether people are terrorists or not? Surely that is way beyond their original remit?

Thought of another. Ooops!

1. A nation may cooperate with GESTAPO in whatever way they deem fit. There's no regulation against it
2. Well, because this resolution requires probable cause, I'm presuming the former.
3. This is a concern, but note that GESTAPO is only required to reveal the information they deem can without damaging the progress of investigations.
4. It's responsible for the maintenance of the list, which means it will have to be reviewed in order to ensure information is accurate.
5. No. The resolution makes no such exception to domestic flights.
6. I'll add a clause to establish a process for this tonight.
7. Yes, they can, if they are deemed a threat to security.
8. It's well within GESTAPO's bounds to form a list of people barred from flight--that is travel regulation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is certainly taking a page out of Gestapo's handbook.

What's the actual goal here? To create an international no-fly list?

You realize how dysfunctional those are in real life (like that case where a young child was put on no-fly list because of having the same name as some terrorist-wannabe)? And how flimsy the reasons can be for placing people there (like, if you've visited Iran in the past 10 years, even as a tourist or a humanitarian aid distributor - basically as anything but nuclear inspector - you'll be labeled a potential terrorist)?

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: This is certainly taking a page out of Gestapo's handbook.

What's the actual goal here? To create an international no-fly list?

You realize how dysfunctional those are in real life (like that case where a young child was put on no-fly list because of having the same name as some terrorist-wannabe)? And how flimsy the reasons can be for placing people there (like, if you've visited Iran in the past 10 years, even as a tourist or a humanitarian aid distributor - basically as anything but nuclear inspector - you'll be labeled a potential terrorist)?

OOC: They're still really useful--and, by the way, if you read the resolution, there must be probable cause that a physical threat is posed in order to add a name, so the scenario's you've described don't work. I've been very deliberate here--also, note that no country is supervising this, so going to Iran won't get you labelled a terrorist. I'm also about to add an appeal method, so none of your comparisons can happen. Focus on the resolution, not the real-life examples. I think I've done a good job of minimizing the pitfalls of real life no-fly list.
Let's walk through your example and say that, for some reason, a ten-year-old child, who is a complete non-terrorist, gets added to the list, which, by the way, does not meet probable cause, and, therefore, would not be there in the first place. The child, or the legal guardians thereof, upon finding out of their inclusion on the list, are able to file suit before a civil court in order to get themselves removed from the list, a case they clearly would win.

[Covenstone]

I have one or two questions :-

1. Can a nation submit a name to GESTAPO from only their nation's citizens, or can they submit one from ANY nation's citizens?
2. Do you have to provide proof that this person is likely to be a danger to their fellow passengers, or is submitting the name proof enough?
3. If we have to tell people we suspect them of being a terrorist, isn't that going to screw up our investigation of them being a terrorist somewhat? It is very hard to covertly surveill someone if THEY KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT!
4. Does the list get reviewed at any point in time, or does it just stay that way for ever?
5. Does this list only apply to international flights?
6. Can someone appeal to get their name taken off the list?
7. Can people get put on the list for other reasons than terrorism? (Being a psychotic axe murderer, for example? Or a pyromaniac?)

Okay, so it turns out I have seven questions. Sorry.

8. Why is GESTAPO investigating whether people are terrorists or not? Surely that is way beyond their original remit?

Thought of another. Ooops!

1. A nation may cooperate with GESTAPO in whatever way they deem fit. There's no regulation against it
2. Well, because this resolution requires probable cause, I'm presuming the former.
3. This is a concern, but note that GESTAPO is only required to reveal the information they deem can without damaging the progress of investigations.
4. It's responsible for the maintenance of the list, which means it will have to be reviewed in order to ensure information is accurate.
5. No. The resolution makes no such exception to domestic flights.
6. I'll add a clause to establish a process for this tonight.
7. Yes, they can, if they are deemed a threat to security.
8. It's well within GESTAPO's bounds to form a list of people barred from flight--that is travel regulation.

This just leads to quite a few more questions/points :-

1. So if someone from your nation decides that someone from my nations meets their criteria for being a suspected terrorist (despite not meeting MY criteria for being a suspected terrorist), they can have them put on a world wide no fly list, meaning not only can they not fly to your country, but they can't fly on ANY AIRCRAFT within the jurisdiction of The World Assembly? Including domestic flights in Covenstone where (according to my government) they have done nothing to warrant such an action?
2. Is there an international standard for burden of proof? (See question 1 for why this matters!)
3. I think if you tell someone they are on a no-fly list, the primary reason for which is "we think you are a terrorist" then telling them they are on that list is going to kind of give away WHY they are on that list, even if you don't tell them the reason/proof/etc. (Not really a question, more of an observation, and not something that can be got around I suppose.)
4. I think for domestic flights, The World Assembly really should not have any jurisdiction. What I do in my airspace really should not matter to other countries. And I do understand that someone could take control of the aircraft and fly it across borders, but still, my country, my problem. And I would hopefully be able to shoot it down before then.
5. My question about GESTAPO investigating terrorism is that they are a passport control body, not an investigative body. If we start allowing them to act as a criminal investigation body (which is essentially what they will become if they are accusing people of being terrorists) that has jurisdiction over the citizens of every WA nation then aren't they getting way beyond what they were originally designed for?
6. Given the resolution about Diplomats and Diplomatic Protection (the number and name escapes me right now) would it be safe to assume that Diplomatic Immunity trumps anything that this proposal can throw at a person? So if a diplomat is accused of being a terrorist by another nation, they still get to fly?

I realise that I am sounding very anti this proposal, which is far from the truth. But I think that having a single, WA wide body to monitor no fly lists for the entire establishment might be overly ambitious and way too complex. Partly because of the problems between nations (if Calladan and Covenstone fall out, then Lucy might start making stuff up about my citizens causing them no end of hassle and chaos if they want to get on a plane to fly from one city to another city within Covenstone) and partly because, as I said, having a WA body carrying out anti-terror investigations in my country is somewhat of a violation of my sovereign rights and kind of invasive.

If the proposal required us to create no fly-lists ourselves (so that we listed citizens in our nations who we thought were whackjobs or terrorists or likely to strip naked and dance the macarena in mid-air) and circulate them to all the other countries, that would be way less problematic. Because the control would be with us, and WE would be the ones controlling OUR citizens, rather than having other nations saying bad things about our people.

I know it seems like semantics, but it is an important difference.

[United Massachusetts]

1. By allowing international cooperation to form a Do-Not-Fly List, under global standards, we help underfunded nations provide for their security needs on civilian aircraft, thereby providing a tool for us to help these nations. Yes, Covenstone would be required to refuse to admit said persons, but on civilian flights, there are people from multiple nations. To put a potentially dangerous person, even if Covenstone doesn't view them as such, on said aircrafts, poses a danger to people from United Massachusetts. It's the only way.
2. Yes. I've defined probable cause as the standard for the burden of proof, which I've further defined. If these definitions are not sufficient, tell me what you would like added.
3. I suppose you have a point here, but the threat of "We're on to you" (coming from GESTAPO) is perhaps intimidating enough to prevent certain terrorists from taking more aggressive action. Plus, GESTAPO is not required to say how they reached said decision to add a person to the database, so knowing you're on the list doesn't mean you can do anything about it to impeded investigation.
4. You have a point. Perhaps, I'll narrow the requirements to cover international flights, thereby mediating disputing air laws.
5. GESTAPO does not have the tools with which to do such an investigation. I might clarify that cooperative member nations shall be responsible for providing any relevant information, with which GESTAPO must determine to be actionable.
6. Yes. Diplomatic Immunity covers said things.

I have to walk my dogs-- I will respond in full in a minute

[Araraukar]

4. You have a point. Perhaps, I'll narrow the requirements to cover international flights, thereby mediating disputing air laws.

"Mediating disputing air laws"? But focusing on international flights only, is the best option forward.

[United Massachusetts]

4. You have a point. Perhaps, I'll narrow the requirements to cover international flights, thereby mediating disputing air laws.

"Mediating disputing air laws"? But focusing on international flights only, is the best option forward.

Yes. I misspoke.

As for Covenstone's point, having each nation set their own standard for international flights is problematic. Consider this: There is a flight from United Massachusetts to Covenstone. Because UMass has a more relaxed list, a person is allowed onto a plane that people from Covenstone consider dangerous. There are people from both countries on the plane. Is that fair to Covenstone?

[Araraukar]

Consider this: There is a flight from United Massachusetts to Covenstone.

An international flight, thus better target for international legislation than a national flight.

Because UMass has a more relaxed list, a person is allowed onto a plane that people from Covenstone consider dangerous. There are people from both countries on the plane. Is that fair to Covenstone?

We already have an air safety resolution and at least one anti-terrorism one. Do either of them say that Covenstone is not allowed to keep its airspace as well as its soil free of unwanted persons? If not, then it is assumed to have that right, and can refuse the aircraft entry. If you nevertheless flew into its airspace without an emergency, you could conceivably be shot down.

[United Massachusetts]

Consider this: There is a flight from United Massachusetts to Covenstone.

An international flight, thus better target for international legislation than a national flight.

Because UMass has a more relaxed list, a person is allowed onto a plane that people from Covenstone consider dangerous. There are people from both countries on the plane. Is that fair to Covenstone?

We already have an air safety resolution and at least one anti-terrorism one. Do either of them say that Covenstone is not allowed to keep its airspace as well as its soil free of unwanted persons? If not, then it is assumed to have that right, and can refuse the aircraft entry. If you nevertheless flew into its airspace without an emergency, you could conceivably be shot down.

Yes, but that's problematic, then: we ought to have a way to prevent a bunch of planes from being refused entry because of differences in no-fly-lists. Hence, this

[Covenstone]

I think my primary problem is still going to be the differences between what two nations consider to be "suspected terrorist activity."

Imagine this situation :-

There are three nations, Covenstone, Calladan and Misthaven.

Calladan considers the action of visiting the "Dark Mountain" region of Misthaven to be evidence of terrorist activity, because there are various camps in the Dark Mountains of The Blessed Order of The Star Chamber (an outlawed organisation in Calladan), and very little else in that region, so if you go there, it is generally accepted you are going there because you are either a member of The BOSC or a sympathiser.

Covenstone, however, doesn't accept that, because it doesn't class The BSOC as a terrorist group, merely as a religious order, albeit a slightly deranged one.

So if Mr William Smith (citizen of Covenstone) visits The Dark Mountain in Misthaven, then the government of Covenstone would not consider him a terrorist (and so not submit his name to this no-fly list because he has not done anything to be worthy of submission). However Calladan would submit his name to the no-fly list because he has done something to be worthy of submission, even though he is not a citizen of Calladan.

Can you see how this might get a bit confusing and chaotic, and lead to all sorts of problems right through The World Assembly, because according to the laws of Covenstone, Mr William Smith has done nothing but according to the laws of Calladan he has done something?

Which leads me on to my next question, and one that could be quite important and possibly screw you over just a little (for which I am very sorry).

There is a resolution in The WA books about governments only being able to apply laws from their own countries. I can't remember which resolution it is, but I am fairly sure it exists.

So, under that resolution, would governments be able to apply THEIR laws to citizens of OTHER countries that are NOT in THEIR jurisdiction? So (in the example above) Calladan could not submit Mr Smith's name because Mr Smith is a citizen of Covenstone, and not of Calladan?

[United Massachusetts]

What I'm speaking of is an internationally set standard, by GESTAPO, in order to determine what information is actionable. This is why we have WA Bureaucracy--it would take an impossibly, and far more than 3,500 characters, so we task a committee with doing so, but we set restrictions for how the gnomes do so. I've set the following restrictions:

• In compiling the list, they must not violate anti-discrimination laws, such as the Charter on Civil Rights. As such, things like race and religion are not criterion for inclusion
• In compiling the list, they must show probable cause that a significant physical threat is posed to passengers-- one may not be added to the list arbitrarily

---

Having given these restrictions, GESTAPO will use information given to them by other nations to compile a list. It is not a nation enforcing its will over another--it is an international body reconciling differences in no-fly lists to create a standard one for international travel. Hence, the problem you provided is not a problem

[Thermodolia]

"Right," Jon says as he looks up from his desk, "you just had to use word Gestapo for your 'Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO)' could you not? This proposal sounds serious and this makes it not. I say change it. Plus it will upset the numerous Jewish people in our nation"

[United Massachusetts]

"Right," Jon says as he looks up from his desk, "you just had to use word Gestapo for your 'Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO)' could you not? This proposal sounds serious and this makes it not. I say change it. Plus it will upset the numerous Jewish people in our nation"

Sir, It's an existing committee--I did not advise it. See Standardized Passport Act. I don't want to create a new Bureaucracy when one will do

[The United Artherian Federation]

"Right," Jon says as he looks up from his desk, "you just had to use word Gestapo for your 'Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO)' could you not? This proposal sounds serious and this makes it not. I say change it. Plus it will upset the numerous Jewish people in our nation"

The Gestapo? I agree with Thermodolia. May be offensive to the Jewish community in game.

[United Massachusetts]

"Right," Jon says as he looks up from his desk, "you just had to use word Gestapo for your 'Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO)' could you not? This proposal sounds serious and this makes it not. I say change it. Plus it will upset the numerous Jewish people in our nation"

The Gestapo? I agree with Thermodolia. May be offensive to the Jewish community in game.

See my above post. I don't like it, but I don't want to create a new Bureau when one is supposed to handle things like this.

[Lord Dominator]

"Right," Jon says as he looks up from his desk, "you just had to use word Gestapo for your 'Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO)' could you not? This proposal sounds serious and this makes it not. I say change it. Plus it will upset the numerous Jewish people in our nation"

"Ah, ambassador, I'm afraid this proposal is not the originator of the particular committee," Deandra comments, running a brief search on her holographic wristband. "That particular committee was created by resolution number seventy-six, and was later reused in number three-hundred eighty-six. If you have complaints about the naming, I suggest taking it to those two resolutions. The author of this draft is being rather courteous in saving our Assembly money."

OOC: Yes I know UM already responded to this, but it took me a little bit to get this.

[Thermodolia]

"Right," Jon says as he looks up from his desk, "you just had to use word Gestapo for your 'Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport Organisation (GESTAPO)' could you not? This proposal sounds serious and this makes it not. I say change it. Plus it will upset the numerous Jewish people in our nation"

Sir, It's an existing committee--I did not advise it. See Standardized Passport Act. I don't want to create a new Bureaucracy when one will do

"Yes but your the one who chose to put the 'A' in there! You could have just called it "GESTPO". Isn't that right Mr. Fluffy?"

[Lord Dominator]

Sir, It's an existing committee--I did not advise it. See Standardized Passport Act. I don't want to create a new Bureaucracy when one will do

"Yes but your the one who chose to put the 'A' in there! You could have just called it "GESTPO". Isn't that right Mr. Fluffy?"

"It wouldn't be very pronounceable then, would it. Besides, GESTAPO is the more correct acronym, what with that And in there."