| Prohibited Group Status for The Black Hawks |
(03-01-2017, 05:18 PM)Imkihca Wrote: Back on to the actual topic, just why are we getting up in arms about something that the region it actually affected haven’t even acted on? We did our duty, we defended our ally, why do we need to now class the whole of TBH as PNG’s for it on top of this? To prove what a loyal ally we are? I think it’s a complete overreaction, they’ve seen how quickly the SPSF reacted when it seemed like they were in trouble, they know we have their back. They haven’t kicked the members of TBH from their region so why should we? Pulling up events that happened years ago to help justify this seems equally ridiculous. From my understanding Mall isn’t even a member of TBH anymore, why should we punish them now, years later when most of them weren’t even around at this time for the actions of someone that isn’t even a member of their organisation anymore? Raiders having a laugh at the expense of something getting raided isn’t exactly a shocker either, involved or not that’s always been pretty standard procedure just as defenders will brag about a successful liberation. There are a lot of flawed arguments here, to be honest. The first flawed argument is that because Lazarus' laws are poorly written and those involved in violating their sovereignty can't be prosecuted, we shouldn't take action against those people. The second flawed argument is that this has anything to do with proving we're a good ally. It has to do with protecting the South Pacific from a clear threat to Feeder and Sinker sovereignty. The third flawed argument is that The Black Hawks' infractions against Feeder and Sinker sovereignty are limited to individual actions. The Black Hawks supported Milograd four years ago; they released a statement in support of the coup and provided pilers for Milograd. The Black Hawks violated Lazarene sovereignty two weeks ago; there were fifteen nations involved in that, not just one or two. We're talking about things The Black Hawks, as an organization, have done, not things individuals who happen to be affiliated with The Black Hawks have done. Bottom line: The Black Hawks meet the first criterion for Article 4, and we know they are a threat to Feeder and Sinker sovereignty, including the sovereignty of the South Pacific. There is no reason we should not designate The Black Hawks a prohibited group. But, of course, that remains up to the Cabinet and/or the Council on Regional Security, I'm just putting forward a case for why they should request a prohibited group designation. If they decline to do that because they believe too much time has passed since Milograd's coup to use that to meet the criteria of Article 4, so be it. But we should then look at new legislation to make sure we can adequately deal with the threat posed by The Black Hawks. Doing nothing is asking for trouble from them later.
As a point of information, we used the same legal justification for declaring the NPO a Prohibited Group, following their coup in Lazarus in 2015: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-2220.html (Assembly thread), http://tspforums.xyz/thread-2425.html (CRS statement).
I would like to remind everyone that we can do nothing for the time being. The criminal code in 4.1 stipulates that the Cabinet or CRS must submit a request for a group to be made a PGoO something they have not done. So if we want to not waste our time discussing something that may never happen y'all can feel free. However, we could always just wait to see what those two groups (Cabinet and CRS) decide to do.
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 (03-01-2017, 07:22 PM)Omega Wrote: I would like to remind everyone that we can do nothing for the time being. The criminal code in 4.1 stipulates that the Cabinet or CRS must submit a request for a group to be made a PGoO something they have not done. So if we want to not waste our time discussing something that may never happen y'all can feel free. However, we could always just wait to see what those two groups (Cabinet and CRS) decide to do. The point of opening this discussion was to encourage the Cabinet and/or Council on Regional Security to request Article 4 designation for The Black Hawks. I assume the discussion that has ensued is a debate intended to persuade the Cabinet and/or CRS on the merit, or lack of merit, of that course of action.
Anyway, long and fun thread here, but here's the thing: Declaring The Black Hawks as PGO will effectively do nothing for our security and make the indy-allies we have squeamish.
In general, something like our PGO law exists in several places (Osiris and LKE come to mind immediately). All they do is cause drama and are used by regional rhetoricians as a "screw you" towards whoever they don't like that day. For example, in Osiris, the group Solidarity is now considered a proscribed organization because, essentially, one member of Solidarity clicked on the Discord profile of an Osiran, saw that it was linked to a Steam account, and looked at things there; that was blown up as "doxxing". Another example is LKE's staunch refusal of anything that remotely smelled of the FRA with epic and grandiose displays of pompousness (I suppose I would have gotten rejected because in school I once wrote an essay on women's sufFRAge). In terms of security, PGO declarations don't help whatsoever, because anybody intent on infiltrating a region with a PGO law (or PNG law, for that matter) is obviously not going to say that they're from a proscribed or prohibited group. The truth is that PGO and PNG laws are just diplomatic constructs, nothing more, nothing less, and it's the responsibility of regional security infrastructure to deal with and judge individuals coming in. So - no, I don't think TBH needs a PGO declaration. Empire doesn't need it either. Instead, we need a functioning, competent, and sensibly empowered security infrastructure. Maybe TSP will have that some day. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
PGO is not a "diplomatic construct" and viewing it that way is problematic af, tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-02-2017, 12:54 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: PGO is not a "diplomatic construct" and viewing it that way is problematic af, tbh. Not de jure maybe. In practice, however: Nobody that actually intends harm to TSP will be even briefly annoyed by it at any point, because they only need to invent and use a fake identity, which they are probably doing anyway, and therefore there's no security benefits. Since there are no security benefits, the only thing the law achieves is to have a list of organizations that we don't like and don't want here, therefore it's de facto just a diplomatic construct. Our security infrastructure needs the competence to judge individuals based on likely membership and their role in problematic organizations, likely motivations, possible alias, etc.; this, in turn, needs to be part of our security checks. Anything else is just window-dressing the fact that we don't have working security.
Empire being on the list is a vital part of our security precautions against them. Otherwise, there'd be little sustained basis to deny them legislator status, running for office, gaining endos and influence, etc. It's not just a "diplomatic construct."
Yes, they can come here under fake identities, using proxies, VPNs, public ISPs, whatever. But when we catch them, what legal basis do we have in removing them, without the PGO declaration? None. I realize you prefer that it be handled entirely by the CRS, and in a perfect world it would be. But I've also been here for 4+ years and seen how inconsistent the CSS/CRS can be, how not all members throughout its history have been up to snuff in security matters, and the general lack of institutional memory in the first place. It's an imperfect vehicle for handling security matters, and that's not going to change no matter what reforms are passed. Dismissing it as a "diplomatic construct" is problematic because you're completely misrepresenting its entire purpose. It's not diplomatic at all. That's why I've been suggesting that a PNG law be made for this TBH case, because an actual diplomatic response may be more appropriate than a security-based response. Equating the two is just wrong. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we essentially agree - we do need the little guarantees PGO gives as long as the CRS is as it is. I'm just more confident that security is a fixable problem, I guess
(03-02-2017, 02:06 PM)Roavin Wrote: I think we essentially agree - we do need the little guarantees PGO gives as long as the CRS is as it is. I'm just more confident that security is a fixable problem, I guess Could we not make this discussion about CRS reform? I may end up agreeing with you on that, depending on what proposals are put forward, but it deserves its own discussion. You're talking about a reform that may never happen. I'm talking about what we can do, within existing law, to deal with a real threat now in the best way we are currently able to deal with it. That way may be imperfect but it's what we've got at this time. In regard to your broader point, that The Black Hawks may sneak in: Yes. But that is more difficult than just waltzing in because they can and nobody's going to stop them. So we should prevent the latter, and still seek -- separately from this discussion -- to improve detection of and adequate response to the former. This should be a both/and issue, not either/or. I basically agree with what Glen has said on the subject. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |