FD: Defining Treason

[Grosseschnauzer]

Prposed by Grosseschnauzer:

Bill Section 1. A new Law entitled “Criminal Offenses” is enacted as part of the Legal Code, as follows:

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific”
that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific. The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
C. Suspension pending trial. At the time an indictment is issued, the Prime Minister or the Attorney General, or the prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General, may file a ex parte civil proceeding with the Court of The North Pacific requesting a court order that suspends the indicted party from the Regional Assembly or any office or position within the government of The North Pacific pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding. This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.

Bill Section 2. Amendment to Statute of Limitations. TNP Law 13 is amended to add a new Section 8 concerning exceptions to the Statute of Limitations, as follows;

Section 8. Exception to Statute of Limitation. This Law does not apply to criminal proceedings founded upon the crime of treason, as defined by TNP Law ___, committed on or after the date that Law is enacted. As to such criminal offenses, there is no limitations period.

Bill Section 3. These provisions take effect upon their adoption as a Law.

 

[Byardkuria]

I agree with the bill as submitted.

 

[FALCONKATS]

Sounds good to me voting for

 

[freedom and pride]

I would rather see the title changed to "defining treason and its punishments" because it is not only defining what treason is.

 

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.

I have two issues with this bill. One in its meaning, and one in its form

The meaning of the clause above worries me. This implies that the director of the NPIA has the right to give any orders, including waging war against this region. Could this possibly be addressed?

C. Suspension pending trial. ... This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.

That 'is' should be an 'are'

 

[Fulhead Land]

I am AGAINST this. And I think it needs to go back for serious discussion

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.

I have two issues with this bill. One in its meaning, and one in its form

The meaning of the clause above worries me. This implies that the director of the NPIA has the right to give any orders, including waging war against this region. Could this possibly be addressed?

C. Suspension pending trial. ... This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.

That 'is' should be an 'are'

ZS the grammarical object in the one sentence you raise is "player" whichi is singular and not plural, this it is "ia" and not "are"

As to your oter question, the key word is "lawful." In addition, the NPIA is held accountable to the Cabinet and the RA through the Prime Minister (which is stated in the Constitution.) And the NPA is accountable to the MoD and the Cabinet through the MoD. So there are checks and balaces there.

There are times when intelligence or military operations have to take place under deep, deep cover in order to have access to information that protects the region. It's a necessary element in defending the region from actual or potential threats.

F&P it's just a thread title, it adopts a defintion to define the crime of treason and exempts it from the statute of limitation. It isn't misleading, is it? I use a two word title and you're complaining it's too short!

@FL, I had little doubt that you wouldn't approve of this law; on the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised that the bill moved to formal discussion. Formal discussion is the point at which the text of the proposal is basically finalized, it's that three week period there can be serious discussion, and the author can agree to changes before it is selected for a vote. So you can have serious discussion here; its just not as casual.

So put on your formal tails and discuss!

 

[Fulhead Land]

FL, I had little doubt that you wouldn't approve of this law; on the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised that the bill moved to formal discussion. Formal discussion is the point at which the text of the proposal is basically finalized, it's that three week period there can be serious discussion, and the author can agree to changes before it is selected for a vote. So you can have serious discussion here; its just not as casual.

I am quite aware, and trust me I will be debating this bill.

I would like to say that I am still dismayed that my pointgs in the previous "casual" discussion thread were diregarded so quickly.

And that you especially, given your position, would be willing to take into account all peoples opinions. Your obvious bias is quite worrying!

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

FL, I went back to the earlier preliminary discussions thread on this bill, and as far as I can tell, I responded to everything you and others raised in that thread.

 

[Fulhead Land]

But in so many ways the constitution, and thus the region, is sliding even further into a paranoia state. we may be making moves to cut out the red tape but still the most recent set of governments seem to be setting precedents that make it easier to ignore any checks and balances and remove, with no consideration for the laws of the region, a persons rights and possibly a persons place in the region. While my trial is slow moving it at least symbolises a justice system (albeit a flawed one). But there seems to be an attitude that this isnt right anymore! And I think this act personifies that!

This was my post, and was indeed the last post in the thread. These were serious concerns that I would like to have had addressed!

I await your response!

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The discussion about adopting a law making treason a specifically defined crime under TNP law actually started when a statute of limitation law was proposed. Romanoffia and others wanted treason excepted from the application of that law. There was no consensus as to how to define the concept, and it wasn;t until Flemingovia came up with his formulation that a solution to that question became apparent.

You claim the region is moving into paranoia. Are you suggesting that the seduction of Limitless Events by the Lexicon was an paranoic illusion that never actually happened? Are you suggesting that members of the Lexicon did not actively interfere in the Regional Assembly within this last month? Are you suggesting that the Lexicon never actually declared war against The North Pacific and attempted to wage war against The North Pacific? Can you assert that the founder(s) and the leadership of the Lexicon have never, ever, sought and will never seek to undermine the government of The North Pacific and have never and will never eek to seize power in The North Pacific?
I know better than that, and deep down, I'd bet you do as well.

It is not paranoia to act in a prudent way to bar unwanted and unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of The North Pacific by those from outside the region, and who hold their greater allegence to those outside The North Pacific. You would have us remain exposed and oblivious to the threats that the recent actions of the Lexicon's agents and allies to interfere represent.

I doubt the Lexicon would tolerate interference in their internal affairs, and The North Pacific has an equal right to not tolerate such behavior. Keep in mind that the definition of treason contained in this proposed law has already been accepted as part of the Regional Assembly oat by an overwhelming majority of the Regional Assembly, and it is not paranoia that fueled that acceptance of that amendment, but common sense. It makes sense to provide a clearer basis in law to deal with treason.

Everything in this proposed law could beaccomplished in a more roundabout way under current law. All this proposed law will do is to simplify criminal proceedings against a party that is charged with committing these actions, and permit the government to prevent further harm to the region while the process of trial takes place.

The bottom line is that it is common sense and not paranoia to take reasonable steps to respond and deal with the ongoing and continuous conduct directed against The North Pacific, its government and its society. It is common sense and not paranoia that pursuaded an overwhelming majority to approve the amendment to the constitutional oath for membership in the Regional Assembly. And it is common sense and not paranoia that supports the adoption of a law to treat treason as a crime, and deal with the imminent threats acts of treason would represent.

 

[Fulhead Land]

All I can say on the matter, given my (Fulhead Land's) lack of knowledge on the internal workings of The Lexicon, is that there has been a peace declared, most recently by The Lexicon's delegate, and yet also by TNP. To consistently talk about such a war, that by admission of two governments is over, would in my mind amount to paranoia. Some may even go as far as suggesting that your government is passing such legislature to fuel the flames of conflict, in this region at least. For what end I do not know.

Pacific, its government and its society. It is common sense and not paranoia that pursuaded an overwhelming majority to approve the amendment to the constitutional oath for membership in the Regional Assembly

It was hardly overwheming. Indeed when the vote was wrongly closed the first time it was very close to failing. Again, a more cynical observer may make something of that. I shall not.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I seriously doubt that Fulhead Land is as ignorant of the Lexicon as Fulhead Land suggests.

And a two-thirds majority, even with the interference of Lexiconians, is still a super-majority.

And in the absence of a peace treaty or some other mutually signed document to that effect, it cannot be stated that there is a full fledged state of war or of peace. It's something inbetween.

 

[Fulhead Land]

Once again I feel it is my duty as an RA member to point out that the person who apparantly "interfered" was once an RA member.

And if pointing out the incompetence or mistakes of a government official as being seen as "interefering" I dread to think what else this government will define as treason if this bill passes!

 

[Emperor Matthuis]

All I can say on the matter, given my (Fulhead Land's) lack of knowledge on the internal workings of The Lexicon, is that there has been a peace declared, most recently by The Lexicon's delegate, and yet also by TNP. To consistently talk about such a war, that by admission of two governments is over, would in my mind amount to paranoia. Some may even go as far as suggesting that your government is passing such legislature to fuel the flames of conflict, in this region at least. For what end I do not know.

If we are trying to fuel the conflict why did we end the war months before you did and take no active part in the hostilities?

Also your attempt at being two different Fulheads would be laughable if the situation wasn't so serious.


But this has my support.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

So the record is really clear on the absence of paranoia as a motivation for being this proposed law forward;

Back in the late winter and early spring of this year, I was the member of the Regional Assembly who proposed legislation to impose a time period within which to bring a judicial proceeding in the Court of The North Pacific.

Before and during the Constitutional Convention, there was a group that argued that they should have an opportunity to hold accountable those who were involved with the Pixiedance dictatorship.

They had that opportunity from the time the work of the Constitutiional Convention was approved last summer through the fall and the winter to seek indictment and trial of those responsible. (Turns out theu were interested in many of those who were involved in the founding of the Lexicon. Curious coincidence, no?)

During the preliminary discussion phase of the limitations bill, I agreed to a staggered approach so that there would be a little more additional time for such proceedings to be filed before court proceedings based on those events prior to the adoption of that revision would be forever barred. The point is that it was an effort to settle that period in our history and try to move forward.

What was the response from those who moved into the Lexicon? Why, they declared and waged war against us. That was their response to an effort to settle the past. And now, Fulhead Land, you complain of our paranoia? The North Pacific declared a cessation of hostilities months ago, only to find that hostile action from the Lexicon continued.

At this point, the Lexicon saying the state of war is over is not the equivalent of a full state of peace. As the expression goes, they have to "walk the walk and not just talk the talk." As far as I am concerned, the burden is on the Lexicon to take clear and concrete steps to cease their hostile actions towards The North Pacific; including subversion our government officials and interfering with our internal affairs.

So if you're wondering if we have tried to be reasonable, as far as I can tell, The North Pacific has repeatedly tried to do so. But there comes a point where we have to take equally reasonable steps to protect The North Pacific. I view the oath amendment which was initiated by the last Cabinet, and supported by the current Cabinet, and this proposed law to define treason as a criminal offense, as two of those reasonable steps that have to be taken.

 

[Fulhead Land]

If we are trying to fuel the conflict why did we end the war months before you did and take no active part in the hostilities?

I presume you were refering to me with that statement? In which case I must point out such questions would best be directed at Lexiconhead. As Lexiconhead isnt a RA memberm it would be inappropriate to discuss with him the merits of your arguements here.

One interesting sidenote, Durnia, from my (Fulhead Land) knowledge of The Lexicon...you seem to welcome people to The Lexicon by refering to it as "your region". In which case that would seem to suggest that you were a part of The Lexicon and thus someone at risk under this legislation and government.

Unless of course EM and Durnia are two seperate identities. In which case, you are being hypocritical no?

So the record is really clear on the absence of paranoia as a motivation for being this proposed law forward;

Back in the late winter and early spring of this year, I was the member of the Regional Assembly who proposed legislation to impose a time period within which to bring a judicial proceeding in the Court of The North Pacific.

Before and during the Constitutional Convention, there was a group that argued that they should have an opportunity to hold accountable those who were involved with the Pixiedance dictatorship.

They had that opportunity from the time the work of the Constitutiional Convention was approved last summer through the fall and the winter to see indictment and trial of those responsible. (Turns out to be many of those who were involved in the founding of the Lexicon. Curious coincidence, no?)

During the preliminary discussion phase of the limitations bill, I agreed to a staggered apporach so that there would be a little more additional time for such proceedings to be filed before court proceedings based on those events prior to the adoption of that revision would be forever barred. The point is that it was an effort to settle that period in our history and try to move forward.

What was the response from those who moved into the Lexicon? Why, they declared and waged war against us. That was their response to an effort to settle the past. And now, Fulhead Land, you complain of our paranoia? The North Pacific declared a cessation of hostilities months ago, only to find that hostile action from the Lexicon continued.

Most of that seems irrelevant and mainly an attempt to assasinate certain characters but I digress.

From my (fulhead Land) limited knowledge of The Lexicon, is it not correct that war began after an admitted spy for out NPIA was discovered there? So your point is moot and indeed casts a different light on the matter should that be the case. Am I wrong?

I view the oath amendment which was initiated by the last Cabinet, and supported by the current Cabinet, and this proposed law to define treason as a criminal offense, as two of those reasonable steps that have to be taken

I am not saying the RA shouldnt pass legislation to help defend the region. I am offereing the viewpoint that it is being done in the wrong way. Much of this legislation is wrong in my view and despite that I feel its being pushed through. Pushed through by using a mix of "the big bad lexers are coming" and via attacks on the arguements of the bills detractors that distract from the main point of this thread.

 

[Poltsamaa]

My major concern is that you are turning somethin IC into something OOC!! It runs the risk of the IC Constitution becoming something that can be sidestepped using legislation designed to prosecute based on OOC event/individuals!!

The amended RA oath has gone someway to changing the region from one where people could play a character in different regions to one now where any other nations you may have are now somehow under the governance of TNP and under the scrutiny of the NPIA!! It certainly assists in the witch hunts which are something of a tradition in this region!! I mean, you can take any event involving a nation outside the region that is owned by a player with a TNP nation and twist it to fall under the draconian treason laws!!

Seeing as there are no real avenues to wage war in this game (other than endo tarting and getting your arse kicked out of the region!!) may I ask what would be construed as an act of war?! I mean, what access to "intelligence" does your garden variety RA member have?! We have steps in place to keep suspicious nations out of the NPA and the NPIA seems to be some self appointed, self-govered entity that would hardly let anyone in that was remotely considered a security risk!! So what exactly is an act of war on TNP?! Does this mean that members of raider groups who are confronted by the NPA must step down for fear of being tried for treason?! I ask because the consequences of being "accused" are quite drastic and the fact that trials take months once underway means the consequences of beign accused of treason is to be removed as a citizen for a lengthy period of time!!

The problem I have is that this legislation is general and arbitrary!! Just ripe for abuse and manipulation for whatever purpose the leaders of the region wish it!! Those who are accused and removed as a citizen until the trial ends if they actually are acquitted of the charge(s)!!

 

[Daimiaena]

Does this mean that members of raider groups who are confronted by the NPA must step down for fear of being tried for treason?!

This is something I have tried to clarify previously.....it does not appear to be addressed in this definition....

 

[Fulhead Land]

yet another major flaw in this legislation

The problem I have is that this legislation is general and arbitrary!! Just ripe for abuse and manipulation for whatever purpose the leaders of the region wish it!! Those who are accused and removed as a citizen until the trial ends if they actually are acquitted of the charge(s)!!

And let us not forget, that could take months or even years.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I made a request to the justices of the Court two weeks ago to provide suggestions as to what might be needed to be changed in current law in order to speed up the jury selection process and trial proceedings.

The Court has rulemaking power over its own proceedures as long as it does not conflict with enacted laws, and respect for the Court's pwers requires that their opinions be respected in the process.

I've said before that I want to see the juror selection process and trial proceedings speeded up. I stand by that. The Court is an equal and co-ordinate branch of government, and I respect that as well. Theefore, the pace of addressing that issue is going to be different than other issues that are on my agenda for which legislation has been introduced, or other steps to find solutions have already been taken.

 

[Poltsamaa]

All well and good, but your proposal here will condemn nations to months without citizenship while the legal processes are ground out based on an assumption of guilt!!

Seeing as there is no clear cut definition of treason or how war is waged on TNP, it is a nice little piece of legislation open to abuse by removed "undesirables" on the basis of suspicion of "treason" for a period of time that is infinite!!

I would hope some serious evidence of wrongdoing would be required before a charge of treason is laid against a nation of TNP!! History suggests this will not be the case at all!!

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

And that, Poltsy, is exactly why there is an efford to clearly define, constitutionally and legally the very definition of treason.

Here's some wording I stole that might be a good starting point again:

Treason against the The North Pacific, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person or Nation shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court or other Public Forum by legally recognized citizens or residents of The North Pacific.

That should be sufficient to cover a multitude of sins yet make it sufficiently difficult to bring such a charge frivolously.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Defining a special standard of proof is different than defining a crime.

The bill as written defines what treason is, that it is a crime, what the punishment is, and the availability of a civil remedy to address imminent threats created by the conduct until a trial is held.

Setting the standard of proof is an altogether different question; and should be separately addressed. Since the Court has the authority to define what evidence can be admitted for a trial, I suspect the remedy for that question would involve a rule adopted by the Court.

 

[Poltsamaa]

As I said, the definition of treason in this bill is vague and I'm guessing deliberately so!!

The problem with defining what actually constitutes trwason after the bill is in place is that there is no onus on anyone to do that!! As it stands, this is an open invitation for the current government and any subsequent government ro remove dissenters from the voter list thus ensuring their re-election!!

Having people indefinitely suspended from the RA pending legal proceedins is a huge punishment for a potentially innocent nation that also doubles as a nice, legal means of silencing anyone you don't want in the Regional Assembly!!

I understand the reasoning for the proposal, but I think it creates more problems than it actually solves!!

 

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

ZS the grammarical object in the one sentence you raise is "player" whichi is singular and not plural, this it is "ia" and not "are"

As to your oter question, the key word is "lawful."  In addition, the NPIA is held accountable to the Cabinet and the RA through the Prime Minister (which is stated in the Constitution.) And the NPA is accountable to the MoD and the Cabinet through the MoD. So there are checks and balaces there.

There are times when intelligence or military operations have to take place under deep, deep cover in order to have access to information that protects the region. It's a necessary element in defending the region from actual or potential threats.

F&P it's just a thread title, it adopts a defintion to define the crime of treason and exempts it from the statute of limitation. It isn't misleading, is it? I use a two word title and you're complaining it's too short!

@FL, I had little doubt that you wouldn't approve of this law; on the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised that the bill moved to formal discussion. Formal discussion is the point at which the text of the proposal is basically finalized, it's that three week period there can be serious discussion, and the author can agree to changes before it is selected for a vote. So you can have serious discussion here; its just not as casual. 

So put on your formal tails and discuss!

"whichi" "this it is" "ia" "oter"

Sleepy?

*Rest of response belongs in new Haor Chall thread.*

EDIT: formatting.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Try wearing three hats with a balky notebook keyboard.

 

[Fulhead Land]

The problem with defining what actually constitutes trwason after the bill is in place is that there is no onus on anyone to do that!! As it stands, this is an open invitation for the current government and any subsequent government ro remove dissenters from the voter list thus ensuring their re-election!!

Having people indefinitely suspended from the RA pending legal proceedins is a huge punishment for a potentially innocent nation that also doubles as a nice, legal means of silencing anyone you don't want in the Regional Assembly!!

How does the prime minister hope to address said concerns?

 

[Emperor Matthuis]

One interesting sidenote, Durnia, from my (Fulhead Land) knowledge of The Lexicon...you seem to welcome people to The Lexicon by refering to it as "your region". In which case that would seem to suggest that you were a part of The Lexicon and thus someone at risk under this legislation and government.

Unless of course EM and Durnia are two seperate identities. In which case, you are being hypocritical no?

Incorrect, I have never and never will claim to be different people or be a coward and hide in our laws. I freely admit that I, Emperor Matthuis and Durnia are one and the same and I came to The Lexicon admitting it and when asked I had no problems telling Insane Power.

As for my welcoming message, it was a joke and never intended to be taken seriously on the three or so occasions that I did it.

Apologies for my hijack.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

#FL, I've already responded to both of those issues.

The first question is a question of evidentiary standards which the Constitution commits to the judiciary as part of the Court's rules.

The second question also requires co-operation from the Court in order to fully resolve. I'm trying to address the seccond with other proposals that deal with the problems in the registration provisions that directly affect the speed of court proceedings, but a lot of the solution ro rhat problem has to come from the Court. As I've stated before, I have already asked the Court for its recommendations for changes the Court feels it needs to have in order to speed up juror selection and trial proceedings, and I've not yet had a reply.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I disagree with allowing government officials to suspend nations for alleged treason pending the outcome of a trial. If this law is enacted it will be possible for a very small number of well-placed officials to circumvent the checks and balances we have in place. It will become very easy to suspend nations for purely political reasons. Even if the Court system were revamped to enable speedier trials, it doesn't mean that a judge or AG with a political agenda couldn't drag things out.

No, this is a scary law. If we had a TNP version of the ACLU, they would be up in arms over this. It is wrong to strip a nation of its voting rights when there is no verdict, no finding of guilt. We should not give government officials the power to infringe upon our hard won freedoms. I have a right to due process, and I am not willing to give up MY right to vote because someone trumps up accusations against me. Let them prove it in court first.

Truly, I am more afraid of the erosion of our most basic freedoms than I am of any "outsiders" infiltrating the ranks of the RA.

 

[freedom and pride]

Define it good, but the standard of proof is also necessary.

Stripping of rights....what??? I should read that again.

Maybe when someone is indicted for treason maximum should we suspend them form holding office. In Florida, the governor gets to suspend mayors and executives if indicted for a felony until the matter is resolved or they go to jail and resign.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

GBM, would you prefer the future use of the method Flemingovia had to use with Limitless Events? There never was an indictment, and the Court was never involved.

If you go look at the preliminary discussion thread on Unter's editing project, you will find a discussion Unter and I had about the ability to go to the Court for an ex parte civil proceeding with respect to having the Court authorize an immediate ejection or banning prior to trial or referendum. The Court already could entertain such a request now on the grounds of regional security.

I would think we'd prefer to have the Court address the question of a temporary suspension rather than have to follow the Limitless Events precedent, even though the Cabinet and the Security Council approved Flemingovia's actions after, rather than before, the fact.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

There has to be a set of specific conditions, in detail, that need to be met before such a charge as treason can even be brought. There also needs to be a specific set of penalties for frivolously beinging such an accusation.

The main problem I see with a nebulous definition is that it sould be used as a political tool against a specific individual or individuals or as a means to paralyse the government. Falsely and/or frivolously making accusations of Treason with malice of forethought for political and/or personal gains should be tantamount to the crime being alleged.

Also, a trial for treason should be held with the RA as the deliberating body requiring a very large majority such as 2/3rds + 1 of the active/participating RA as a total in order for there to be a conviction.

It should be extremely difficult for a charge of treason to be brought. which is why I suggested the wording I did, viz:

Treason against the The North Pacific, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person or Nation shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court or other Public Forum by legally recognized citizens or residents of The North Pacific.

as a starting point.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

You made the exact same proposal nine months or so ago, Romanoffia; it wasn't bought then, remeber?

The trial of criminal proceedings are the exclusive province of the courts, not the Regional Assembly. Putting it in the Regional Assembly would make it look like Republicans impeaching Clinton.

The other problem is using a peculiar Rl definition which was dictated by a RL historical background that does not remotely exist here.

The TNP Constitution now provides language that does define conduct that most would consider treason for purposes of TNP law; and this bill is based upon that language.

If you're looking for adding new procedures and usurping the authority of the Court of The North Pacific in the process on the standards of proof and what can be accepted as evidence, then start a new proposal dealing with that issue.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have decided to hold back one proviion of this proposal for now and address it separately in distinct legislation.

However, that decision on my part does not mean that such a request cannot be filed with the Court of the North Pacific in circumstances where an indictment is issued; the Court is clearly authorized to impose any appropriate remedy in a civil proceeding, and in circumstances where the criminal charge is sufficient, I maintain the COurt already has the jurisdiction and power to grant such a request.

Bill Section 1. A new Law entitled “Criminal Offenses” is enacted as part of the Legal Code, as follows:

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific. The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.

Bill Section 2. Amendment to Statute of Limitations. TNP Law 13 is amended to add a new Section 8 concerning exceptions to the Statute of Limitations, as follows;

Section 8. Exception to Statute of Limitation. This Law does not apply to criminal proceedings founded upon the crime of treason, as defined by TNP Law ___, committed on or after the date that Law is enacted. As to such criminal offenses, there is no limitations period.

Bill Section 3. These provisions take effect upon their adoption as a Law.

 

[Fulhead Land]

No, this is a scary law. If we had a TNP version of the ACLU, they would be up in arms over this. It is wrong to strip a nation of its voting rights when there is no verdict, no finding of guilt. We should not give government officials the power to infringe upon our hard won freedoms. I have a right to due process, and I am not willing to give up MY right to vote because someone trumps up accusations against me. Let them prove it in court first.

Truly, I am more afraid of the erosion of our most basic freedoms than I am of any "outsiders" infiltrating the ranks of the RA.

Gross; I see the ban on sight part has gone...so its slightly better now. I still have concerns, however.

For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific.

Player?

I know your aiming this at people such as...I dont know...anyone who plays in the lexicon too. Which is wrong and bias in itself but that isnt the point.

The point is, how far does this reach? Blue Wolf and the LWU fight the NPA- according to this, treason. The North Pacific argues with the NPO to the point where its hostilities- erastide, darkesia and anyone else who also plays there are traitors.

It doesnt work, and indeed, how can THIS region legislate on nations in OTHER regions?

 

[Haor Chall]

I disagree with allowing government officials to suspend nations for alleged treason pending the outcome of a trial. If this law is enacted it will be possible for a very small number of well-placed officials to circumvent the checks and balances we have in place. It will become very easy to suspend nations for purely political reasons. Even if the Court system were revamped to enable speedier trials, it doesn't mean that a judge or AG with a political agenda couldn't drag things out.

No, this is a scary law. If we had a TNP version of the ACLU, they would be up in arms over this. It is wrong to strip a nation of its voting rights when there is no verdict, no finding of guilt. We should not give government officials the power to infringe upon our hard won freedoms. I have a right to due process, and I am not willing to give up MY right to vote because someone trumps up accusations against me. Let them prove it in court first.

Truly, I am more afraid of the erosion of our most basic freedoms than I am of any "outsiders" infiltrating the ranks of the RA.

GBM, would you prefer the future use of the method Flemingovia had to use with Limitless Events? There never was an indictment, and the Court was never involved.

And this will solve that? All that incident proved is how pointless and toothless our constitution is and how easily it can be circumvented. Making it longer is unlikely to help prevent any further abuses.

 

[Poltsamaa]

Legislating in-game to encapsulate "players" who are OOC is ludicrous!! As pointed out clearly by Heft (peace be upon him!!)!!

This legislation is flawed, open to abuse and impedes the right of players to role-play in TNP and in NS as a whole!!

It asks players to choose to align all their nations with TNP or face removal from the region, at the very least in a political sense!!

Wrong on so many levels and GBM summed it up nicely, "...a scary law."!!

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If people want proof that some of those who have expressed disapproval of this legislation don't read, the last three posts are proof of it.

As this proposal currently stands, all three posts are quoting GBM's comments concerning a provision that is no longer in the proposal. Her comments were directed towards that one provision.

The current language of the proposal is based on three sounces: First, the definition is based on language approved by two-thids of the Regional Assembly. The provision on the mazimum punishment that can be imposed is based upon theclear constitutonal language that assigns the imposition of punishment in a criminal case on the jury, subject to a requirement of proportionality. All this section does is set a maximum. The maximum punishment available may or may not "proportionate."

And the statute of limitation provision clearly creates an exception for this particular offense, which was the approach discussed extensive within the Regional Assembly at the time the statute of limitations law was debated.