What happens if the council believes there is a security threat that doesn't break the law?

Then, at least as I understand it, the CRS would be within it's legal powers under the SPA to deal with it. It's only where the CRS beleives someone has broken the law that they are required to go to court to prove this.

I mean ... I don't think that deals with the main problem here but ...

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

What happens if the council believes there is a security threat that doesn't break the law?

Then, at least as I understand it, the CRS would be within it's legal powers under the SPA to deal with it. It's only where the CRS beleives someone has broken the law that they are required to go to court to prove this.

I mean ... I don't think that deals with the main problem here but ...

True. Part of me thinks we should just scrap the current SPA and start again.

_{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

True. Part of me thinks we should just scrap the current SPA and start again.

CRS*

Reply

Given this thread contains nothing warranting a concern for regional security, I formally petition the Chair to move this to the public forum. It's just an amendment to an already public law.

This thread is for discussion of amendments to the Security Powers Act and thus is directly related to security. Aside from that, these amendments are in response to the recent exercise of these security powers, which can only be discussed in the private halls. Moving this thread back to the public Assembly forum would risk legislators inadvertently committing espionage just to discuss this legislation, which would be irresponsible. The petition is denied.

What happens if the council believes there is a security threat that doesn't break the law?

Then, at least as I understand it, the CRS would be within it's legal powers under the SPA to deal with it. It's only where the CRS beleives someone has broken the law that they are required to go to court to prove this.

Belschaft is correct here.

I mean ... I don't think that deals with the main problem here but ...

True. Part of me thinks we should just scrap the current SPA and start again.

I've said all along that anyone with ideas should offer suggestions for further amendment while we're already amending the Security Powers Act. I would suggest withdrawal of the motion to vote and the second that occurred earlier in the debate if we're going to consider further amendments, though.

Reply

As someone responsible for the security of the region, I can tell you with complete confidence that this thread poses no security issue.

Additionally, the CRS would like to announce that we have O.K.'d the publication of our report.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

As someone responsible for the security of the region, I can tell you with complete confidence that this thread poses no security issue.

Additionally, the CRS would like to announce that we have O.K.'d the publication of our report.

As I noted a couple days ago, Article 1, Section 3 of the Criminal Code, the definition of espionage, includes the following language:

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.

Now, personally, I think it's nonsensical that the Council on Regional Security apparently cannot legally declassify its own threads for the general public, and I think the Chair should be able to determine what belongs in the private halls and what doesn't. Nonetheless, the law says what the law says. If the CRS would like to seek the written permission of the Cabinet for the public release of its report, I will be happy to move the report and all related subsequent threads to the public Assembly forum. Until such permission is obtained, I will not be moving the report or any related subsequent thread to the public Assembly forum.

I would also urge legislators to exercise caution in publicly distributing or discussing the report just because the CRS has approved its publication.

(This post was last modified: 04-28-2017, 03:16 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

You're forcing us to file criminal charges. And the you're telling us it's espionage to release OUR OWN REPORT to the public, which would be necessary in order to file charges.

The speed with which you've delved into dysfunction is astonishing.

The report is a product of the CRS. It's not the Assembly's report. We will post it wherever we please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

You're forcing us to file criminal charges. And the you're telling us it's espionage to release OUR OWN REPORT to the public, which would be necessary in order to file charges.

The speed with which you've delved into dysfunction is astonishing.

The report is a product of the CRS. It's not the Assembly's report. We will post it wherever we please.

I'm not telling you anything. I didn't write the Criminal Code. You are the author of much of the dysfunction that exists in our laws, and were actually around for discussion of these laws when they were debated, so perhaps you should get outraged with yourself instead of continually decrying anyone who attempts to actually follow the hastily written, deeply flawed laws you wrote and/or debated. Laws exist to be followed, not disregarded for your convenience.

I'm also not telling the CRS what to do with its report. If the CRS wants to ignore the definition of espionage and publish its report beyond the private halls without written permission from the Cabinet, I can't stop you. All I've said is that I am not, as Deputy Chair, moving the report or any related subsequent posts from the private halls without the written permission of the Cabinet. I have no power to compel the CRS to take the same course of action I'm taking.

In other words, if you'd like to play chicken with the Criminal Code, you can do that (though I wouldn't recommend it), but don't expect me to do it.

(This post was last modified: 04-28-2017, 04:22 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

I don't see anything saying it's the "Assembly Report on Investigation into Belschaft & Neo Kervoskia". It says it's the CRS's report. If you think it's "playing chicken" for the CRS to publicly post its own report, that is the definition of dysfunctional.

Reply

I don't see anything saying it's the "Assembly Report on Investigation into Belschaft & Neo Kervoskia". It says it's the CRS's report. If you think it's "playing chicken" for the CRS to publicly post its own report, that is the definition of dysfunctional.

I've already said it's up to the CRS whether to publicly post its report. Don't put words in my mouth.

The Criminal Code is clear that private information from TSP's forum can only be publicly disclosed with the written permission of the Cabinet. I will not knowingly commit what I believe to be a violation of the law. If the CRS disagrees that it is a violation of the law and wants to post the report, that is up to the CRS. All I'm saying is that I'm not moving the report, nor any related subsequent threads, from the private halls to the public Assembly forum without written permission from the Cabinet. The CRS can do whatever it thinks it should do; I have no power over that.

(This post was last modified: 04-28-2017, 07:01 PM by Cormac.)

Reply