Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 03-17-2017, 12:23 PM

Change it to same incident?

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

~~Cormac~~ · 03-17-2017, 06:53 PM

New draft. The only change is a minor tweak to 2(6) to address the double jeopardy concerns.

It seems like suggestions for revisions have pretty much been exhausted, so I'll move for a vote on this draft as well.

Quote:
Security Powers Act
An Act to define security powers to address threats to the Coalition of the South Pacific

1. Security Measures

(1) When there is compelling information presented to the Council on Regional Security that an individual poses a risk to regional security, the Council may declare the individual a security risk.

(2) Upon declaring an individual a security risk, the Council on Regional Security may subject that individual to increased security precautions, including:
a. Suspension of voting in the Assembly, if the individual is already a legislator, and in elections;
b. Prohibition against admission to legislator status, if the individual is not already a legislator;
c. Prohibition against standing for election or being appointed to any office;
d. Suspension of the exercise of any office the individual already holds, and all accompanying powers and privileges;
e. Prohibition or suspension of participation in government ministries;
f. Prohibition or suspension of service as a game-side Regional Officer;
g. Suspension of specific game-side Regional Officer powers;
h. Prohibition against maintaining a World Assembly nation in the South Pacific;
i. Restrictions on the number of endorsements the individual's World Assembly nation in the South Pacific may maintain.

(3) The Council on Regional Security will conduct an investigation to determine whether an individual declared a security risk poses a long-term threat to regional security.

(4) During the course of the investigation, the individual declared a security risk will have the opportunity to offer testimony and evidence to the Council on Regional Security in their own defense.

(5) If the Council on Regional Security determines that an individual declared a security risk does not pose a long-term threat to regional security, the Council will rescind its declaration that the individual is a security risk, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected will be rescinded.

(6) If the Council on Regional Security determines that an individual declared a security risk poses a long-term threat to regional security, the Council will declare the individual a security threat.

(7) Upon declaring an individual a security threat, the Council on Regional Security may subject that individual to increased security precautions, including:
a. Removal from any office the individual already holds;
b. Prohibition against standing for election or being appointed to any office;
c. Removal of legislator status, if the individual is already a legislator;
d. Prohibition of legislator status;
e. Prohibition against participation in government ministries;
f. Prohibition against service as a game-side Regional Officer;
g. Prohibition against maintaining a World Assembly nation in the South Pacific.

(8) After being declared a security threat by the Council on Regional Security, should the individual persist in posing a threat to regional security through further threatening behavior, the Council may impose bans against the individual game-side, via the regional forum, and via any other off-site property maintained for official use by the Coalition of the South Pacific. The Council may rescind such bans.

(9) The Council on Regional Security may rescind a security threat declaration, at which time all precautions to which the individual had been subjected will be rescinded.

2. Oversight and Restrictions

(1) Should investigation of an individual declared a security risk exceed two weeks, the Assembly may, by a simple majority of those voting, rescind the security risk declaration, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected will be rescinded.

(2) The Cabinet may propose rescinding a security threat declaration. The Cabinet must notify the Assembly of its proposal to rescind a security threat declaration and must explain why the individual declared a security threat does not pose a long-term threat to regional security.

(3) Upon notification from the Cabinet, the Assembly will debate rescinding of the security threat declaration for three days, after which a vote will be conducted. The Assembly may, by a three-fifths supermajority of those voting, override the Cabinet's proposal and sustain a security threat declaration.

(4) If the Assembly vote is not in favor of overriding the Cabinet's proposal to rescind a security threat declaration, the security threat declaration will be rescinded, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected, including bans for further threatening behavior, will be rescinded.

(5) An individual declared a security risk or a security threat may appeal such a declaration to the High Court, which will determine whether reasonable cause existed for the declaration. Should the High Court determine that reasonable cause did not exist, the declaration will be rescinded.

(6) An individual may not be declared a security risk or security threat more than once for the exact same incident(s) of threatening behavior.

3. Constitutional Law

(1) The Security Powers Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Omega · 03-17-2017, 07:06 PM

I will second the motion. I still have my concerns and I still have a hard time with this but it is time we vote.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

**Griffindor** · 03-17-2017, 07:20 PM

I third the motion. Also, is this in the correct format following the Law Standards Act passing?

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016

~~Cormac~~ · 03-17-2017, 08:35 PM

(03-17-2017, 07:20 PM)Griffindor13 Wrote: I third the motion. Also, is this in the correct format following the Law Standards Act passing?

Aye, it is.

***sandaoguo*** · 03-18-2017, 01:33 PM

I find that at least five days of debate have happened on Cormac's bill, and so it will be going to vote.

**Belschaft** · 03-20-2017, 06:15 PM

So, whilst I recognise the logic and necessity behind legislation along these lines, but at the same time I retain serious worries about the impact on individuals rights and the ability of the CRS as currently constituted to properly make use of the new powers, particularly when it comes to issues of overreach and evidentiary burdens - in particular, I have concerns in regards to the CRS making assumptions and assertions absent any evidence supporting such.

As such, I've chosen to abstain on the vote, and will trust in the Court to strike down any and all sections of this legislation should the CRS prove itself incapable of properly exercising these powers.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 03-20-2017, 09:54 PM by Belschaft.)