| Definition of "security threat" |
|
Actually, the cabinet has done a very good job defining what a security threat is. Based on the decision about Belschaft, Wolf and Todd, can you paraphrase why the cabinet declared him a security threat?
I'd like to see where you stand on vote stacking in the particular incident of Belschaft especially since Todd was involved. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest (03-11-2015, 05:05 PM)Escade Wrote: Actually, the cabinet has done a very good job defining what a security threat is. Based on the decision about Belschaft, Wolf and Todd, can you paraphrase why the cabinet declared him a security threat. If I base my opinion only on the decision about Belschaft, sure, but that would be ignoring the more recent decisions about Neenee and Dalimbar, who were seemingly denied for being part of The Empire. To add to my confusion, I took part in the 2008 TEP "Empire" coup, was involved in the planning process, committed TWP troops to the assault, and was the equivalent of the Minister of Defense in The Empire government, yet I was not denied. I have participated in a civil war in The West Pacific where I planned, organized, and executed a major attack against the Delegate which succeeded in unseating him, yet I wasn't denied for that either. I have been tried on the charges of treason in TNP (found innocent), not considered a threat. I have been accused of trying to coup TRR in 2011 and had my citizenship denied by the delegate there (decision overturned by vote), still allowed to be a citizen here. I have been accused of misuse of power and plotting to overthrow TNP when I was delegate in 2012, but everything is kosher with me. So, to be perfectly honest with you, no. I have no earthly idea how the Cabinet defines a Security Threat, because they seemly lack consistency. Maybe I'm allowed here because of Lone Wolves United long standing relationship with TSP or maybe it's because I got a WA Commend but Dalimbar and Neenee didn't? Yeah, that must be it. 
You're conflating multiple issues is what I think the problem is.
Belschaft is a separate one. Dalimbar and Neenee are separate ones. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I thought the underlying justification given for the three most recent citizenship denials we've had was the Brave Little Toaster happened and we can't afford anyone who might be subversive? Doesn't that link the issues?
In any case, I think the one that will probably apply to Todd very shortly will be the issue concerning Dalimbar and Neenee, citizenship denial for being a possible security threat, not the issue concerning Belschaft, Security Threat Declaration. Just my opinion, of course. I can't actually see what the Cabinet is up to.
(03-11-2015, 04:42 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Defining "security threat" is a political question, not something the Court can determine as a matter of law. Furthermore, the precedent of Operation Brave Toaster has proved that tarting is not the only way of being a threat to regional security. The Cabinet has a duty to adapt its definitions and policies to changing times, and it has risen up to the occasion. That line of thinking is not only destructive, it is manipulative. Indeed, I personally believe there have been dozens of instances across NS where individuals wanting something to pass in game have TG'd a particular group of people to sway the vote their way, or asked some of their friends to join a region to sway a vote in one direction, or prevented a group of people from joining their region to manipulate or restrict the voting base. Some are found out, some are not. We shouldn't be able to prevent seemingly innocent people from coming here based on what they might do - I've kind of proven that anyone is capable of at least planning some kind of shifty behavior. It happens. People make mistakes. Discrimination of who is and is not a citizen, especially if by action they have done nothing wrong or offensive in or to the region (Dali, BGP, and Nee come to mind), is manipulation, especially when it's been determined via a few individuals that the appeal process is very, very difficult for a discriminated individual to pass. It provides a slippery slope, one that I'm sure if another cabinet was selecting citizens a bit differently we might have a different tune coming from others in this thread. Regardless, I will continue to wait for the courts to review this. As for the executive policy debate, these policies must fall within their realm of responsibility. Extending the cabinet's jurisdiction to citizenship checking and approving / denying apps, which is the Vice Delegate's jurisdiction, is unlawful based on what I've read.
The Vice Delegate has every right to consult the proper government and security authorities before pre-approving someone for citizenship. There is nothing unlawful about that.
People make mistakes, true enough. Saying it doesn't mean they should be welcomed with open arms. If they actions put the security of the region in harm's way, or if there is a reasonable suspicion that they might commit such actions, then an argument could be made that they should not be let back into the region. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
(03-11-2015, 08:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: The Vice Delegate has every right to consult the proper government and security authorities before pre-approving someone for citizenship. There is nothing unlawful about that. They have a right to consult, based on the provisions outlined, but the cabinet cannot extend its power to more or less construct a list of undesirables in the region. As explained earlier, such powers were meant to be used in emergency situations when a court trial would've taken too long to reach a verdict. Based on past usage, it was never meant to be used in the current context. That's why I brought it to the attention of the court. As far as the 'welcomed arms', I get that. I'll be honest, I still feel bad for what happened those months ago. But it was actually a comment by Glen (somewhere on the NS forums) that helped me change my mind: if someone really does care or want to participate in the region to make a positive impact, they won't let a bad thing like that stop them. They'll stick with it, whatever that reason may be. So my question, which is different from the court case (and may be split off if an admin wants) is when does something like this "wear off"? Dali and Nee have done nothing bad to TSP based on what I've read / remember. The Empire was in 2008 - since then, one of their own even became a delegate in TEP and is still remembered warmly by those when she served. BGP is just from TEP, really. When does this kind of stuff wear off? Does he get a shot at applying again? Does he have to keep applying until one day a cabinet decides he's had enough and they decide to give him a chance? Do we review current citizens who have done shifty stuff in the past? How are we certain that there is no inherent bias among the cabinet members? I am passionate about this because TSP was the first GCR to give me, a former raider, a chance. Had they not, I don't even know if I'd still be playing this game. It significantly affected my path in this game, and I believe it can do the same to others.
This is neither the time nor place for a discussion. Since I am not submitting an amicus brief, I will be taking my leave now.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
That response did not inspire confidence.
Can we hear from the Court as to whether or not they feel they can rule on this?
If not, I suggest we move this discussion to the Assembly for a legislative debate.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |