A security law that requires a thorough investigation and gives the person investigated a chance to speak is 10 times more than any other region in the game goes.

I looked into that claim actually. Looking at the laws within Lazarus and Osiris they have no laws even allowing their security bodies to conduct investigations like this. All their security bodies do, according to their laws, is manage endorsements.
So yeah. This is actually surprisingly out of line with some of our fellow GCR's.

Tell that to the people who have banned by Lazarus and Osiris.

I never said it doesn't happen. I was only saying they do not give their security agencies anywhere near this amount of power in their laws. The only bodies in those regions that can legally take the actions that this current draft would allow for are the courts.

Between the bans outside of their laws and their general instabilities I don't think either really holds as a comparison here.

Reply

Under the provisions of Article 4, Clause 8 of the Charter I am presenting a competing bill;

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 subject to formal investigation.

(2) Upon declaring such, 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 notify the High Court of this declaration, with any and all increased security precautions taking effect upon acknowledgement by the Permanent Justice.

(4) The formal investigation may last no longer than two weeks. At the end of this two week period the Council on Regional Security may apply to the High Court for a single one week extension.

(4) The formal investigation will last for an initial two week period. At the end of this two week period the Council on Regional Security may notify the High Court of a one week extension. Subsequent to this unconditional one week extension, the Council on Regional Security may apply for further one week extensions, conditional on demonstrating to the satisfaction of the High Court the continuing nature of the investigation.

(5) During this period of formal investigation the subject must comply with all increased security precautions upon notification by the Council on Regional Security, and the Council on Regional Security may take action to force compliance if they refuse to do so.

(6) During this period of formal investigation the subject must provide all reasonable cooperation with the Council on Regional Security.

(7) At the end of this period of formal investigation all increased security precautions expire, unless the Council on Regional Security elects to bring criminal charges against the subject. Should the Council on Regional Security elect to bring criminal charges, increased security precautions may remain in place till the conclusion of the trial or a ruling of the Permanent Justice lifting them.

2. Constitutional Law

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

Criminal Code

An act laying out crimes against the Coalition and their punishments

1. Crimes

(1) Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with.

(2) Identity fraud shall be defined as a deception made of one's self, or knowingly abetting in another's claims to a false identity, wherein this fraud threatens the security of The South Pacific, or circumvents the laws and legal processes of The South Pacific.

(3) Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates on the South Pacific Forum without the express written permission of the Cabinet of the South Pacific shall be considered Espionage.

(4) Blackmail shall be defined as demanding private gains from a player in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information.

(5) Miscarriage of Justice shall be defined as a deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the judiciary from reaching a true and just result.

(6) Organised crime shall be defined as involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in The South Pacific.

(7) Corruption shall be defined as the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage.

(8) Electoral Fraud shall be defined as a manipulation of the democratic process in The South Pacific, wherein an organised body of abettors conspire to obtain legislator status with the intent to vote for private or personal advantage.

(9) Vexatious Charges shall be defined as the filing of criminal charges against another player despite the filing party's knowledge that that said charges were meritless, frivolous, repetitive, and/or burdensome.

(10) Seditious Non-Compliance shall be defined as refusing to comply with the lawful instructions of the Council on Regional Security or otherwise refusing to cooperate with their investigations to a sufficient degree, whilst subject to formal investigation.

(11) Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules.

I believe that this grants the CRS the formal investigatory powers they need, as well as reasonable powers to ensure the security of the Coalition. At the same time, it does not conflict with the established civil rights of TSPers, or produce a frankly illiberal situation where - at the end of a formal investigation - the CRS may declare that someone has broken no laws but will nevertheless have penalties imposed upon them extra-judicially. If people still feel that there are security holes here, then I would welcome suggested additions to the Criminal Code to close them.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 01:07 PM by Belschaft.)

Reply

Again, "crime" means that the community must suffer first. Unless, of course, we create a new crime of being a security threat, defined as "the CRS believing you're a threat to regional security." Ensuring the security of TSP is not criminal law enforcement. No more than the US military is engaging in law enforcement when the President orders a strike against a threat to national security.

(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 12:31 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

The US President does not, however, have the power to strip a citizen of all their civil rights and imprison them indefinitely without trial or accusation of illegal activity.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

New draft. Changes in this draft:

1. Edit to 2(2) to require the Cabinet to explain why an individual doesn't pose a long-term threat to regional security in its recommendation to the Assembly to rescind a security threat declaration.

2. Addition of 2(4) to prevent an individual from being declared a security risk or security threat more than once for the exact same threatening behavior.

After some consideration, I have not implemented Tsu's suggestion to involve the Cabinet in security risk and security threat declarations. I think it is important to maintain the Cabinet's role as a check on these powers in 2(2), and that would make little sense if the Cabinet is also involved in exercising these powers in the first place. Again, I also took into account concerns others had raised earlier in the discussion in regard to Cabinet involvement with imposing security threat declarations.

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) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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.

(8) 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 Assembly may, upon the recommendation of the Cabinet and by a three-fifths supermajority of those voting, rescind a security threat declaration, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected, including bans for further threatening behavior, will be rescinded. The Cabinet must explain in its recommendation why the individual does not pose a long-term threat to regional security.

(3) 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.

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

3. Constitutional Law

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

Reply

What happens if the Court agrees with the declaration but believes the actions taken are not proportional to the threat?

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

Reply

inb4 I get declared a security risk and banned from legislating 
>:c

Reply

inb4 I get declared a security risk and banned from legislating 
>:c

Don't spam threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

What happens if the Court agrees with the declaration but believes the actions taken are not proportional to the threat?

The Court's role, in my draft -- which I assume is the one you're referencing -- is simply to determine, on appeal, whether there existed reasonable cause for the declaration. It is not the Court's role to determine whether the precautions taken are proportional to the threat, and I don't think it should be, otherwise we're getting mighty close to turning security threat declarations into criminal cases. The CRS is responsible for regional security and should determine what precautions are warranted, as long as the Court agrees that reasonable cause existed for a security threat declaration in the first place.

Reply

I think this draft is coming along nicely.

I mentioned this someplace else, but I would prefer that it was a joint situation between the CRS and the Cabinet. That would mean we'd have a standing group involved, but also there would be some representational power so an elected group couldn't dominate things.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply