| Prohibited Group Status for The Black Hawks |
As an aside: Can we please stop with the cussing. I'd been editing it quietly (here and in other threads) but, as a general rule, I'd sooner we use f--- and f------ as opposed to the actual words. Please and thank you.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (02-28-2017, 01:00 PM)Cormac Wrote:(02-28-2017, 12:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote: If you reach back four years in time to get around their failure to really meet the criteria, and make use of an event that did not see them designated under this law when it occurred. This is nothing about "personal" criteria and everything about legal criteria. The only incident you've presented that can be considered applicable dates back four years - it's actually older than this law. I would suggest that this indicates an extremely weak case. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) (02-28-2017, 01:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: This is nothing about "personal" criteria and everything about legal criteria. The only incident you've presented that can be considered applicable dates back four years - it's actually older than this law. We're going in circles, because you won't acknowledge that The Black Hawks don't need to meet any criterion except the criterion they already meet. There is no statute of limitations in the law on how long ago they needed to participate in a coup against the South Pacific. No one else, thus far, seems to think this is a weak case. The Black Hawks are clearly a threat and they meet one of the criteria for being designated as a prohibited organization. I'm honestly not seeing the problem. I'm not trying to be a pain here. I legitimately believe The Black Hawks are a threat, and since they meet the official criteria, even if it was four years ago, I don't see why -- given everything they've done since -- we wouldn't just act to protect the region from the threat they pose. (02-28-2017, 01:23 PM)Cormac Wrote:(02-28-2017, 01:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: This is nothing about "personal" criteria and everything about legal criteria. The only incident you've presented that can be considered applicable dates back four years - it's actually older than this law. Speaking as a private citizen here, while the criteria has no statue there are sane limits to what the Cabinet and CRS can claim in the present as hostile. (02-28-2017, 01:34 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Speaking as a private citizen here, while the criteria has no statue there are sane limits to what the Cabinet and CRS can claim in the present as hostile. I guess I have to wonder then how we could claim Empire is a threat, given that their last documented subversive activities occurred in 2013, the same year The Black Hawks participated in Milograd's coup. And no, I'm not saying that we should let Empire in, I'm just saying that it's been a while since they did anything anyone can document -- but we still consider them a threat. I understand where you and Belschaft are coming from. To me, there is a preponderance of evidence from multiple Feeders and Sinkers that The Black Hawks are a threat. Their involvement in Milograd's coup is enough to satisfy the criteria required to designate them a prohibited organization, so along with their subversive actions elsewhere, that seems like more than enough justification to act to protect against the threat they pose. It seems like a problem that a group has to participate in a coup or other serious subversion against us before we can consider them enough of a threat not to let them into the Assembly. Shouldn't the goal be prevention? In this case, because The Black Hawks did participate in a coup against the South Pacific and do meet the criteria, we can engage in prevention. So why not do that?
I'm not suggesting that TBH are anything other than what they are Cormac; areshole raiders. Of course they'll never miss an opportunity to screw with a GCR, that's what they do; TBH exists to cause havoc and sow anarchy, in the pursuit of their own fun. Their unashamed acknowledgement of this, devoid of pretence, sophistry or hypocrisy is a big part of their charm.
They are not a group TSP should be especially close with, though on occasion we may find ourselves on the same side of an invasion. They are not a group we are especially close with, and for all the reasons mentioned. Were someone to propose a TSP-TBH treaty they'd be laughed out of the Assembly, and for good reason. But Article 4 designation is an entirely kettle of fish. The fact that to find sufficient legal cause to justify their designation we'd have to go back to 2013 is, in of itself, explanation enough of why it's not appropriate to be designating them under it. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
We do not have to go to 2013 to see how dangerous they are. Why not two weeks ago? 2017?
This group has been shown to engage in the undermining of GCR sovereignty, including ours in 2013. And I was there in 2013. To not punish one of the groups that helped in Milo's coup is indefensible. We must prevent such an action to happen again. It would've been fine if they stopped in 2013, but no straws are being grasped at when they continue to do this, especially with a treaty ally. It's time we protect ourselves from a potential security threat. It is better to prevent than to cure. We must not let the Black Hawks wreak havoc upon us again, when they're doing it right now with other regions similar to us. If we do nothing, we let them have an open door to attack TSP.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
Maybe it would be better to have attacking an ally as an offense in and of itself, and not necessarily under the framework of the PGO law?
(02-28-2017, 02:55 PM)Ryccia Wrote: We do not have to go to 2013 to see how dangerous they are. Why not two weeks ago? 2017? The question of if TBH is dangerous in general is irrelevant. The PRO law is extremely clear in requiring hostility towards TSP itself, and as of this moment the only justification under the PRO law is an incident from four years ago.
What Far said. It has to be understood that Article 4 declaration is not for groups that are... trollish? Dickish? I dunno what to call them.
Article 4 designation indicates that membership of a region or organisation is irrevocably incompatible with being in TSP; that said group will try to subvert, undermine or take over TSP. That members of that group will put that groups interests before TSP's. That it is not a question of whether or not they might coup the region if they get the chance at some point in the future; members of such groups will actively work towards that objective. That would be their purpose in TSP. Empire is a prohibited organisation because it is literally a group of players that came together with the objective of trying to take over GCR regions, and that is what they do. NPO was a prohibited region because they spent two years slowly taking over Lazarus, demonstrating that their members were joining GCR's for the sole purpose of taking them over. Unless someone can show that TBH members would only be joining TSP for the purposes of engaging in the subversion of the region with the objective of taking it over, then there can be no question that it's not the kind of organisation Article 4 is intended for. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |