Users browsing this thread:

Awe · 03-02-2016, 11:40 AM

Quote:If he is such a horrible threat to our security, why are we not debating not simply his removal from the CSS but declaring him to be an official Security Threat?

No, no we're not. This cannot be further from the truth.

In accordance with Article 1.2.7 of the Charter:

Quote:7. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 60% majority vote in favor.

I will inform this Assembly that the Cabinet has not and are not having any discussions to declare Sam a security threat.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

***Tsunamy*** · 03-02-2016, 11:40 AM

(03-02-2016, 11:19 AM)Wolf Wrote:
(03-02-2016, 09:59 AM)Cormac Wrote: What you're obstructing is the removal of a known security threat from the institution that is supposed to ensure regional security. I'm "so vexed about it" because while it's inevitable that Sam will end up off the CSS (or whatever replaces it), every day that he remains on it is a day that he represents a risk to the security of the region.

If he is such a horrible threat to our security, why are we not debating not simply his removal from the CSS but declaring him to be an official Security Threat?

That's ultimately what were getting at, isn't it? Some sort of declaration and retribution for Sam's role in The Crisis? I for one am not in favor of such heavy handed tactics. Nor am I at all comfortable with removing Sam from the CSS but leaving Kringalia, Sandaoguo, and Farengeto, the very object of the Opposition's rage and distrust. Nothing spells out "hidden reprisals" quite like that.

So no, I am not in favor of removing Sam from the CSS at this time and feel that we should keep the roster as it is until after the Great Convention, which will perhaps form a replacement institution which is more balanced.

Whine, cry, stomp your feet and call it obstructionism all you want, it doesn't make your reasoning any more valid than mine.

Let's be real. There's a difference between being part of the security apparatus of the region and being an active security threat.

You're also making a false equivalency here. Suggesting that ejecting people from the region is akin is being disliked by "the opposition" is disingenuous. It's not like Kris, GR and Far ejected people, and even the claim that they misused their power is dubious, at best.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

ProfessorHenn · 03-02-2016, 11:41 AM

It does. Kringalia, Sandaoguo, and Farengeto DID fight to protect the Coalition, and their position as CSS member is not up for recall. Who is up for recall is a person who did NOT fight to protect the Coalition, something he was entrusted to do, but failed to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

~~Wolf~~ · 03-02-2016, 11:51 AM

(03-02-2016, 11:40 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Let's be real. There's a difference between being part of the security apparatus of the region and being an active security threat.

Sure, but Tsu, I think you've been missing the part where people arguing for his recall are saying he's an active security threat, and I don't agree with that. I mean, you were in the channel when Kris stated that he's been demanding that Sam lower his endorsements.

Sam's still a member of the CSS and he's being treated as an active threat by those who politically oppose him. This smacks of dishonest political maneuvering and abuse in power.

(03-02-2016, 11:41 AM)Cathalea Wrote: It does. Kringalia, Sandaoguo, and Farengeto DID fight to protect the Coalition, and their position as CSS member is not up for recall. Who is up for recall is a person who did NOT fight to protect the Coalition, something he was entrusted to do, but failed to do.

You're 100% correct Henn. Those three did not side with Hileville. No, their actions and choices merely almost caused a Civil War to break out in the region.

I'm not in favor of removing the losing side of The Crisis while keeping the very people who exacerbated, or even arguable caused, The Crisis in the first place.

No, we should wait until the GC and then replace everyone with more reasonable choices.

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2016, 11:52 AM by Wolf.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-02-2016, 11:54 AM

I think attempting to "dissolve the Coalition" without any legal authority qualifies as a coup d'etat. Considering the fact that the Coalition eventually succeeded in retaking the region, I'm not sure why it has to be controversial that we want to remove one of the coupers from the institution tasked with preventing coups. This was not a political controversy. This was an illegal seizure of power and the forced removal of political opponents. This was a coup.

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

***Tsunamy*** · 03-02-2016, 11:55 AM

(03-02-2016, 11:51 AM)Wolf Wrote:
(03-02-2016, 11:40 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Let's be real. There's a difference between being part of the security apparatus of the region and being an active security threat.

Sure, but Tsu, I think you've been missing the part where people arguing for his recall are saying he's an active security threat, and I don't agree with that. I mean, you were in the channel when Kris stated that he's been demanding that Sam lower his endorsements.

Sam's still a member of the CSS and he's being treated as an active threat by those who politically oppose him. This smacks of dishonest political maneuvering and abuse in power.

I agree. I think the nuances have been passed over in a lot of the arguments.

My personal feelings are that neither Imki nor Sam are immediate threats to the region. But — as I've been saying — I don't get to decide this on my own.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

~~Cormac~~ · 03-02-2016, 11:57 AM

I want the opposition to put every other clever argument aside and answer two simple questions:

Why should we leave someone who participated in a coup less than a month ago on the CSS? How does that benefit TSP?

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2016, 12:00 PM by Cormac.)

ProfessorHenn · 03-02-2016, 11:59 AM

Best to remove the last sentence, Cormac.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

**Belschaft** · 03-02-2016, 01:05 PM

I'm deeply uncomfortable with pointing at people on one side of The Crisis and saying "They're security threats due to their actions, they shouldn't be trusted" which is what this vote is about. Sam is as committed and invested in TSP as anyone else, and while we can all agree that the Cabinet acted improperly during The Crisis they were by no means alone in that, and I'm not going to agree to make judgements about people based upon their actions during that.

We avoided civil war by one side calling it quits, and for all intents and purposes surrendering unconditionally, and I don't think it's a good idea for us to respond to that by blacklisting those involved.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

ProfessorHenn · 03-02-2016, 01:09 PM

We're not blacklisting, we're removing a security risk from our security organization. Nothing more for this vote.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2016, 01:10 PM by ProfessorHenn. Edit Reason: were to we're )