| Security Threats |
If you want more oversight, then I would suggest using the security organ we already have. Require that the Cabinet consult with the CSS before using their authority. Require that both conduct a review six or so months afterwards.
But opening the process up *even more* to politicking isn't more oversight. It's just letting security threats vote stack and lie their way to repealing their own bans.
I actually agree here with GR here, the cabinet has never used the security threat declaration before and I do believe that it is not being thrown around. One month time period as a review is pretty short and also makes a mockery of what is intended, I believe, to be a power used only in dire circumstances.
I myself do want some checks and balances but I think the Assembly already had the 75%, which considering how much power the Assembly already has which is to say that is the main power in the region and the central branch of our government is enough oversight. Instead we should give the CSS more of a role and authority. I do like the idea of the cabinet having to consult with the CSS, they are our Committee for State Security. In 6 months there would be a new cabinet (perhaps I guess) and the CSS can update them or review with them? I still thinking that overturning should require some sort of action so that 1. declarations aren't made willy nilly and 2. they hold a clear power that is to be used in extreme circumstances. From what I have read about the Lazarus situation, the laws themselves have been abolished (such as their Bill of Rights) by the couper rather then Stujenske using the laws against people. In fact, the situation it reminds me of (and which I believe someone else cited on the TNP forums) was that the state of emergency power was what was used to suspend all rights. We, thankfully, have some balances in place to prevent that kind of situation. Thank you SB for bringing this up since it also brings up the matter of the TSP Assembly discussing prohibited groups such as NPO. As for Empire, if it were to become a prohibited group would that mean anyone formerly affiliated with it would also be prohibited? That brings up the question of whether one of our MoFA candidates, potential cabinet members would also be covered by that kind of declaration. And for the NPO that would mean their members on this forum would lose their citizenship as well? 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
I think the process starts at the wrong place. A security threat should be determined by the CSS and then recommended for removal. I would favor a change where the CSS recommends and then the Cabinet votes on it. The Cabinet would also be able to ask the CSS to investigate someone and report back with a recommendation of their status. I still favor the Assembly override process and strongly believe that the 75% threshold needs to be lowered. I would suggest 66% for a new threshold.
I like the idea of having a review. I think that could be done every 3 or 4 months and be conducted by the CSS w/ the Cabinet voting on whether or not to overturn the declaration after the CSS has reported back. (04-13-2015, 05:44 PM)Unibot Wrote: I think the prohibited groups method is inherantly flawed. It's such a massive legal hammer than nobody wants to use it. I don't believe this to be the case. The NPO could be the first one depending on how this whole Laz thing plays out. I do believe that TSP as a whole has for the most part been and should continue to be a welcoming region.
Hileville, my thought was the same I was responding to the hypothetical use of the prohibited groups instead of security threat as its a much more encompassing power with far more repercussions.
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 Quote:I don't believe this to be the case. The NPO could be the first one depending on how this whole Laz thing plays out. <comment redacted> and the Assembly would still busily discuss whether or not NPO deserves a Prohibited Group status. It's not a functional security system. It's a paper tiger that probably won't ever be used.
Please watch your language Uni. Nobody wants to see that sort of stuff here, it is uncalled for. Removed the offending part.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |