Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 04-27-2017, 04:44 PM

Aiight. So, this is a really rough draft, but what do we think about something like this?

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 issue a "Declaration of Security Concern."

(2) A "Declaration of Security Concern" should be drafted and released with as much supporting information and documentation as possible. The declaration should not be seen as finite proof of as infraction, but should list valid reasons for its issuance.

(2) (3) Upon declaring an individual a security risk, issuing a "Declaration of Security Concern," the Council on Regional Security may request subject that individual follow 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.

(3) Upon issuance of the declaration, the nation in question is allowed to respond public or privately to any concerns made public.

(4) After the response, and any followup investigations, the Council for Regional Security may remove the recommendation or vote to keep the declaration in place. Keeping the declaration in place should be take to mean the individual's behavior is being watched.

(5) The Council on Regional Security may declare an individual a security thread and take the following action if the individual under watch continues with suspicious or concerning activity:

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) (6) 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.

(7) If the individual believes they are being singled out improperly, they may appeal the declaration and following decisions to the High Court, which may rule whether the Council for Regional Security had a right to be concerned and/or whether followup actions were appropriate.

(8) Unless otherwise noted, Declarations of Security Concern must be updated once every electoral season. To maintain the declaration, new information does not need to be uncovered, but the council in encouraged to explain the reason for ongoing concern.

(9) Failure to update the Declaration of Concern within four months will result in the declaration being nulled.

(4) Upon issuance of the declaration, 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) (10) The Council on Regional Security may rescind Declarations of Security Concern and security threat declarations, 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) (1) The Cabinet may propose rescinding a Declaration of Security Concern or 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) (2) 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) (3) 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) (4) 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.

The idea is to give the CRS some powers without turning it into a judicial body. It also dials back demands on "investigations" and provides a bit more guidance and what the body can actually do.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

~~Cormac~~ · 04-27-2017, 04:55 PM

This notably includes fewer checks and balances than the current Security Powers Act.

At the same time as people are concerned that the CRS improperly exercised its powers and did not properly investigate, you are proposing legislation that would weaken checks on the CRS' exercise of these powers, further lower the threshold for the High Court in considering the propriety of security declarations, and essentially eliminate investigation. I absolutely cannot support that.

(This post was last modified: 04-27-2017, 04:57 PM by Cormac.)

**Belschaft** · 04-27-2017, 05:06 PM

The problem with the way that the CRS is using the SPA in quasi-judicial manner isn't resolved by changing the wording, as the same powers can still be used in the same manner. I appreciate what you're trying to do here Tsu, and get how you want the SPA to function - I certainly think this is a step in the direction you want, and prefer it to the current version in many ways. I don't think it solves the underlying problem however, which is one of evidentiary burdens. Due to the penalties involved - which can be in excess of anything allowed under the criminal code - burden of proof has to lie with the CRS.

I think "Is possibly true" is a reasonable standard for temporary provisions, but when we move to something that is permanent or open-ended we have to move to "Is probably true".

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 04-27-2017, 05:26 PM

(04-27-2017, 04:55 PM)Cormac Wrote: This notably includes fewer checks and balances than the current Security Powers Act.

At the same time as people are concerned that the CRS improperly exercised its powers and did not properly investigate, you are proposing legislation that would weaken checks on the CRS' exercise of these powers, further lower the threshold for the High Court in considering the propriety of security declarations, and essentially eliminate investigation. I absolutely cannot support that.

I've taken essentially most of the enforcement power away from the CRS, Cormac, and, as such, it wouldn't need as much oversight. Further, the only "oversight" I removed is the enforcement of an unrealistic, two-week time limit.

The concern isn't that we didn't "investigate" isn't that we didn't investigate in a manner that you saw fit. I don't think the CRS should be investigating at all.

(04-27-2017, 05:06 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The problem with the way that the CRS is using the SPA in quasi-judicial manner isn't resolved by changing the wording, as the same powers can still be used in the same manner. I appreciate what you're trying to do here Tsu, and get how you want the SPA to function - I certainly think this is a step in the direction you want, and prefer it to the current version in many ways. I don't think it solves the underlying problem however, which is one of evidentiary burdens. Due to the penalties involved - which can be in excess of anything allowed under the criminal code - burden of proof has to lie with the CRS.

I think "Is possibly true" is a reasonable standard for temporary provisions, but when we move to something that is permanent or open-ended we have to move to "Is probably true".

Let's be real, Bel, we all know I'm not the legislator among us. How can we get to what I want?

To be the, the rewording from "subject" to "request" was deliberate as to not suggest it's a requirement and that one could ignore it. But, in doing so, they'd need to feel they were on solid footing to snub the CRS; and, would give the CRS some power if there was a further or a fast moving change.

What if we require initial declarations (What I'm calling "Declarations of Concern") to be OKd by the Cabinet or Assembly? I know some people will suggest that's mob rule, but ...

-tsunamy
[forum admin]