| Declassified: Belschaft & NK |
Aye as well
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-03-2017, 09:26 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Writing an order for the express purpose of allowing someone's removal? Sorry, but no thank you. It's not for the expressed purpose of someone's removal, Kris — if you read my earlier post. It's to give us options to deal with a security threat. Ideally, it would be to (a) ask Bel to drop his endorsement count for a bit and (b) launch an investigation where we can discuss this more thoroughly with Bel. Right now, the only can each approach Bel individually and try to report back on something. This would allow us to "investigate" which (I'd imagine) would involve setting up a group meeting with Bel, presenting him with the evidence and taking it from there. This also wouldn't have to be done in a public setting, so we could keep it somewhat under wraps and not expose it to public opinion. I don't even think I'd support a full expulsion, but if we're going to set up a law this way, we might as well set it up as best we can for the future. I'm going to Abstain from the official vote since I've already asked the Cabinet to consider this suggestions and don't want to put more pressure on it. But, I'll say that I think this is one of the better options we have. If any of the Cabinet feels otherwise, I'm happy for us to reconsider.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
To be clear on my stance, I'm not exactly in favor of spending another 4 weeks reiterating every point we've made, just this time with Bel in the room. We've already done our investigation. Bel can give his defense, but if this takes another month, any momentum we've had will be completely demolished...
(03-04-2017, 11:50 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: To be clear on my stance, I'm not exactly in favor of spending another 4 weeks reiterating every point we've made, just this time with Bel in the room. We've already done our investigation. Bel can give his defense, but if this takes another month, any momentum we've had will be completely demolished... I generally agree. We need to hear Bel's side, but, even in the most damning aspects of this, I'm not sure expulsion would be the desired outcome. Reduction of endos? Maybe a prohibition of running for office, but I'm not sold that booting him from the region is a equal punishment.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I support Seraph's amendment. I also think that if the CRS cannot act (not in unilateral ways) but in terms of actually taking some sort of actions then they are useless. There is a reason the CRS is critiqued for not knowing what is going on. We need better intel, we need people on the NSGP Discord and the other millions Discords listening. I don't know how to be good at intel or train intel but we need better intel.
Finally, let's be honest here. Is Bel a problematic individual - yes. Is he an individual who is trying to become delegate and may do some underhanded things like invite his friends to vote for him? Yes. Is it possible that if Bel cannot become delegate or feels there are barriers he will take more drastic action? Possibly. However, one way to think about it might be: 1. What can be proved in NS or TSP? 2. How do we know that the NK situation isn't him trying to figure out Empire? 3. Rumors of TSP being couped have been high recently but they always are? 4. Who are our actual enemies? 5. How do we bolster our defences so that we are like an impregnable fortress which is the best defense for people who don't know offense? 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
(03-04-2017, 02:04 PM)Escade Wrote: I support Seraph's amendment. I also think that if the CRS cannot act (not in unilateral ways) but in terms of actually taking some sort of actions then they are useless. There is a reason the CRS is critiqued for not knowing what is going on. We need better intel, we need people on the NSGP Discord and the other millions Discords listening. I don't know how to be good at intel or train intel but we need better intel. This is also why I'm saying these actions can only be taken in tandem with the Cabinet. If we can't trust the CRS and Cabinet to be decent people, we're already screwed.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(03-04-2017, 11:12 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: It's not for the expressed purpose of someone's removal, Kris — if you read my earlier post. It's to give us options to deal with a security threat. It could be for the right to sent him a strongly worded letter and I'd still be opposed. I'm sure you have honest intentions, but I'm fundamentally opposed to stretching the law in this way to deal with security threats.
I would have no problem if there was a law that explicitly allowed us to handle such a situation, I'd support the passage of such a law, provided it was properly worded and included the necessary safeguards for due process. But at the same time, I don't believe issuing an executive order is the right way to do this. It's legal, strictly speaking, but I don't think it's ethical to improvise a process simply because there's no law on it. Particularly because you may have no such intention, but once passed, there's no guarantee that the EO won't be used to push for full expulsion. (03-04-2017, 02:09 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: If we can't trust the CRS and Cabinet to be decent people, we're already screwed. Not to open old wounds, but we know from experience that no institution is free from messing things up. I don't want us to set a precedent where we can issue a decree to handle security procedures, and only then think about turning it into law. Yes, I know the Assembly would have to review the EO anyway, but you know where I'm going with this. A security procedure, while implemented by the CSS, should be initially discussed and approved, openly, by the regional legislature, not secretly by elected and appointed officials.
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
The notion that the CRS (not CSS) can't or shouldn't develop a security law and send it to the Assembly is nonsense. We aren't banning Bel and then issuing an EO to justify it. We're sending it over to the Assembly, and then acting on it only if it's made into law.
I'm going to abstain but if you're going to do something just do it already
Glen — just dump it on the Assembly at this point. Clearly few people care about doing anything else.
We might and well blow it up with all the drama we can muster.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |