| Definition of "security threat" |
I find it disruptive and off-putting that anyone who a member or members of the cabinet do not like are simply labeled as "security threats" without any justification from the law and are therefore left on the outside looking in. Even a reason as to why they were labeled as such is absent. In the end, these individuals are left to fight for their citizenship in what is akin to a group of kids asking a new kid, "so, why should we let you in our club?" That's not very democratic to me.
Speaking as an individual who had served this region for six years, the intent of "security threats" was not supposed to prevent people whom the cabinet did not like from obtaining citizenship. That's manipulation and is altering the voting base of TSP for unethical reasons. Article 1, Section 2, Point 7 was supposed to address "security threats" as those who are in the WA and are a threat to the delegacy. Or at least, it used to stand for that. That's why the Point comes right after the point about immediately removing cit's from people who aren't in the region anymore. And, it's why whenever the term "security threat" is brought up, it historically points to endotarters, as outlined here by former delegate B&N. It was important enough for Antariel to make it the first point in his campaign thread years ago. So in the past, "security threat" was more or less defined as an individual who was a citizen but was in clear violation of some endorsement limit. The very need for such a law was again re-stated by GR in a discussion on citizenship. It was, in more or less terms, designed to quickly remove a threat to the in-game delegacy and provide a quick means to remove them rather than go through the courts, wait a bit, and then hope that they haven't obtained the delegacy by the time the court ruling was finished. Having "security threat" as a nebulous, undefined term is not only confusing, it's dangerous. It was never meant to be used in the way it has now, as something to be used 1. On a non-citizen 2. Who does not have a WA in TSP and 3. Is not a threat to the in-game delegacy of TSP. If we allow such events to continue, more potential citizens whom members of cabinet (whoever it may consist of) do not like can be thrown out without much justification if at all. And, as QD pointed out, under the current rules it is near impossible for an appeal process to pass if the cabinet is united against someone. This gives the cabinet way too much power in determining citizenship - power which should be reserved for, as it is defined in the charter, forum administration (security), the Vice Delegate (approve / denying under specific circumstances), the cabinet (threats to in-game delegacy), and the courts (abuse by current citizens). To this end, I am asking for clarification on the use of "security threat". Does "security threat" mean a citizen who is in clear threat to the in-game delegacy who must be dealt with swifty in the interest of in-game security, as defined and assumed in previous instances? Or has this definition changed to the point where it is acceptable to apply this to non-citizens seeking citizenship who happen to be disliked by a member or members of the cabinet? If the definition has changed, I would like to see when and where it did, because thus far I have not been able to locate this definition change as it is outlined in law. Finally, if the definition is the former and not the latter, I ask for an end to the practice of having the cabinet determine citizenship and return that right to the proper departments. Thanks in advance!
The Court does not have the power to write new definitions, as that is a legislative endeavor. The only bodies permitted in our Charter to establish that kind of policy are the Cabinet, through executive policies, and the Assembly through bills.
You don't need to worry - I wouldn't ask the courts to draft up a new definition of the term "security threat". I know that's what the Assembly is used for.
Instead, I'm asking a legal question, a clarification of the definition we currently are using. Is "security thread" for in-game threats to the delegacy via endotarting of citizens, as others including yourself have pointed out in previous threads (see original post, I linked it), or is it the definition which the cabinet has recently adopted (from about 3 months ago or so, unannounced, not voted on by the assembly, etc), which more or less prevents certain people from becoming citizens without giving specific reason or justification? I can't edit my topics or posts due to my current masking, but if you'd like to add "[Legal Question]" as a prefix to my topic as others have in this forum, you're more than welcome to do so if it would help clear up the intent of this thread.
*"Security thread"*
Ah, the wonders of technology. I'm on Tapatalk!
Yeah, sorry... been one of those days, lol. "Security thread" should read "security threat"
Todd, you are still asking for the Court to write a definition.
If there is no law passed by the Assembly on the matter, then the Cabinet has the authority to determine what is and is not a security threat.
It is an extremely dangerous precedent to leave something open to interpretation, especially if the definition has changed drastically in recent history. Based on previous accounts, we clearly had a definition in place. That definition has changed over time. I am asking the courts whether or not such a change in definition has legal backing.
Have faith in the court - I am following procedure outlined in Article 4, Section 3 of the charter, which outlines the general provisions for a legal question. You may submit a counter-claim as outined in Point 3, however. I should also like to point out on a minor note that none of the powers of the Cabinet outlined in Article 6, Section 1 include arbitrary denial of citizenship apps on the basis of security threats.
One Cabinet had a different definition than the current Cabinet. That's how executive policy works.
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.
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, 04:42 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Defining "security threat" is a political question, not something the Court can determine as a matter of law. Well, if that's true, it's a shame because the Cabinet has done a very poor job of defining to the public just what a Security Threat actually is. Hopefully the High Court actually does have jurisdiction over this question and can finally bring logic and clarity to the issue. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |