+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: Security Powers Discussion (/thread-4946.html)
Security Powers Discussion - Tsunamy - 03-11-2017
As mentioned in a different thread, I think we need to discuss what powers the CRS and Cabinet have to investigate and deal with security threats. As such, I'd like to propose the following as starting point.
Quote:Security Actions Act
Realizing that the Charter does not empower the Cabinet and/or Committee for Regional Security to take action where there is a legitimate and relevant security threat, this act shall allow the following:
Where there is pressing and relevant information presented to the Committee for Regional Security and the Cabinet, together they may take the following course of action:
(1) Declaration of a security risk
(a) Those deemed a "security risk" may be subjected to increased security precautions, including stricter endorsement requirements and limitations on running for office, while a joint task force investigates the matter in full.
(2) Declaration of a security threat
(a) Once a citizen or legislator is deemed a security risk, the joint task force may strip them of legislator status, deny access to the regional forums or banject the individual from the region.
These declarations are appealable to the High Court, where the joint task force and accused are able to present their sides of the issues in question. The High Court may then rule on whether or not the joint task force's actions have a reasonable basis.
Someone who is better at drafting laws can make changes, but I think we need a couple actions so the committee can act as they see fit.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Belschaft - 03-11-2017
I'd be extremely reluctant to support legislation like this currently, when the Cabinet/CRS are willing to come to conclusions and declarations like this -
"Belschaft ran for Delegate a month later, and then Minister of Foreign Affairs in the last election, both powerful positions in TSP's government that would be useful for doing the above. The CRS strongly believes that Belschaft's offer to aid Empire is a serious and shocking act, given that Empire is currently TSP's only official declared enemy. Empire is currently a Prohibited Organization, with the CRS and the Assembly believing that it is hostile to TSP. The CRS believes this offer is nothing less than aiding an enemy."
- without, as far as I can tell, even the most basic of actual investigation - or even approaching the individual in question. Where this legislation in place currently I'd right now be in the process of having to appeal to the High Court, because the CRS is unable or unwilling to actually investigate. Giving it the power to avoid due process and legal protections hardly makes any sense in such circumstances.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Omega - 03-11-2017
What exactly is this joint task force you are referring to?
RE: Security Powers Discussion - sandaoguo - 03-11-2017
A joint task force would basically be the CRS and the Cabinet all together.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Escade - 03-11-2017
There is no point in having a CRS and a cabinet if they are effectively neutered from taking any sort of action. Therefore, I support Tsu's proposal.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Tsunamy - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 01:55 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'd be extremely reluctant to support legislation like this currently, when the Cabinet/CRS are willing to come to conclusions and declarations like this -
"Belschaft ran for Delegate a month later, and then Minister of Foreign Affairs in the last election, both powerful positions in TSP's government that would be useful for doing the above. The CRS strongly believes that Belschaft's offer to aid Empire is a serious and shocking act, given that Empire is currently TSP's only official declared enemy. Empire is currently a Prohibited Organization, with the CRS and the Assembly believing that it is hostile to TSP. The CRS believes this offer is nothing less than aiding an enemy."
- without, as far as I can tell, even the most basic of actual investigation - or even approaching the individual in question. Where this legislation in place currently I'd right now be in the process of having to appeal to the High Court, because the CRS is unable or unwilling to actually investigate. Giving it the power to avoid due process and legal protections hardly makes any sense in such circumstances.
To be fair, I don't think we have the power to "investigate" formally and although you did have informal discussions about the above chats with at least one CRS member.
This would give us the power to investigate properly and actually do something with the investigation. Right now, no matter what was done, no one had any power unless someone wanted to press charges of treason in the court.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Belschaft - 03-11-2017
(03-11-2017, 04:37 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:(03-11-2017, 01:55 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'd be extremely reluctant to support legislation like this currently, when the Cabinet/CRS are willing to come to conclusions and declarations like this -
"Belschaft ran for Delegate a month later, and then Minister of Foreign Affairs in the last election, both powerful positions in TSP's government that would be useful for doing the above. The CRS strongly believes that Belschaft's offer to aid Empire is a serious and shocking act, given that Empire is currently TSP's only official declared enemy. Empire is currently a Prohibited Organization, with the CRS and the Assembly believing that it is hostile to TSP. The CRS believes this offer is nothing less than aiding an enemy."
- without, as far as I can tell, even the most basic of actual investigation - or even approaching the individual in question. Where this legislation in place currently I'd right now be in the process of having to appeal to the High Court, because the CRS is unable or unwilling to actually investigate. Giving it the power to avoid due process and legal protections hardly makes any sense in such circumstances.
To be fair, I don't think we have the power to "investigate" formally and although you did have informal discussions about the above chats with at least one CRS member.
This would give us the power to investigate properly and actually do something with the investigation. Right now, no matter what was done, no one had any power unless someone wanted to press charges of treason in the court.
If it's a question of investigatory powers that's one thing, though I'm surprised that the CRS doesn't view themselves as having such - broadly speaking, I don't think they even need them "formally" as refusing to cooperate with the CRS is inherently suspicious. The importance of due process and legal protections can't be understated however, and I think it's very dangerous to create a method to strip people of rights and ban them from the region without due legal process, especially when we have an example - the current one - of how shoddy a CRS "investigation" can be.
The fact that the CRS has accused me of treason over logs I told them about and they never asked to see doesn't, to be frank, fill me with much confidence. The obvious means of determining my guilt or innocence once the CRS had the log extract in question - asking me to provide my logs of conversations with NK, and then seeing if I would include the bit they have - is now closed, due to what I can only call shoddy work.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Kris Kringle - 03-11-2017
I have some slight concerns with the specifics of the bill, though I strongly believe it needs to be passed in some form. We definitely need an empowered CSS, and this bill is a necessary first step.
My two concerns are:
(1) Letting the Cabinet, a political body, have a vote in security matters. I agree they should have a voice, and we should listen to what they have to say, but the final decision should be made by the CSS, since the whole idea is they are better acquainted with security matters irrespective of politics.
(2) Allowing the CSS to ban people from the forum. I can see a case for restricting someone from the Assembly, and we obviously should keep the provisions for full bans for treason convictions, but fully banning someone from the forum who hasn't committed a crime or broken forum rules seems a bit excessive. I believe that kind of power should still remain with the High Court and Forum Administration.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Cormac - 03-11-2017
I broadly agree with Kris.
Despite some issues with the specifics, which I think Kris has covered, I support this. It's obvious it's needed, not only because of the situation between Neo Kervoskia and Belschaft, but also the speed at which this entire situation leaked back to Osiris. There needs to be a better way to deal with security threats in general than blanket prohibition of regions or the high threshold of evidence required for criminal proceedings.
RE: Security Powers Discussion - Belschaft - 03-11-2017
Kris makes good points. I'd also suggest a more communicative/open approach; if the CRS thinks someone is an in-game security threat, ask them to temporarily drop WA to clear they're endorsements rather than banjecting them. A lot of bad-blood and bitterness can be avoided by communicating with people, explaining your concerns, and giving them a chance to address them.