Take 2... :)

flemingovia:
mmm. Is this what you meant by "discussing sensibly"?

Perhaps you could address the issue rather than making a personal jibe.

My point is that in an intel organisation the knowledge that at some point disclosure may hamper seriously the operation of that organisation.

As far as I can see, that section of the proposal as it stands would effectively wrap up the NPIA.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried that last time but nobody else seems to want to address the actual issue at discussion, perhaps if you and others could do so as well, rather than resort to personal attacks (points to Hersfolds post) or arguing against something which hasn't even been said (points to Hersfolds post) it might make this easier. However, whilst you may call it a 'jibe' it is a serious point, but isn't directly related to the topic at hand, so I apologise for going off-topic slightly.


Anyway, to respond to your point.

This only mentions disclosure in relation to trials. Therefore, in the instance you put forward this would not been an issue as that did not involve a trial. So this wouldn't result in the end of the NPIA as you and others seem to suggest, as it refers only to the cases of trials and I think the vast majority of NPIA activities, in dealing with regional security, don't result in trials and so won't be effected by this.

As things stand, I don't know how secret NPIA information (if not revealed) can be used in a trial. Unless the jury are just supposed to believe the Director of the NPIA saying, "he's guilty, believe me". It should be obvious, in our system, that isn't good enough.

It may be that additional procedures, for dealing with sensitive information, are needed in the Court. That, however, would need to amend a different part of the Constitution/Legal Code. I accept that will be necessary, but its not really my area of expertise so I'd leave that to Grosse and others who would be able to make those kind of changes.

I hope that clears that up for you.



Hersfold:
A question, which I am attempting to phrase "sensibly"...
Click to expand...

Shame you didn't manage it then. I'm half tempted just to ignore your post, partly because of the implied personal attacks and because you, again, use strawmen rather than argue against the proposal that has actually been put forward. However, in the interests of the discussion, I will attempt to respond to your points in the hope you respond to the points I make rather than another imaginary arguement.


Why does the NPIA need external regulation?
Click to expand...

Why doesn't it? A well known Thomas Jefferson quote about liberty and security springs to mind. The NPA and the MoD have extensive procedures, limits and controls for their activities in the Constitution and Legal Code, as does the MoEA. The NPIA does not. As an institution, supposedly serving this region, the NPIA should be answerable to this region. That is the whole idea, the underlying principles, of the region. Of democracy, openness and acccountability. I do recognise that the NPIA deals with matters which require a greater degree of secrecy, and this proposal recognises this but also recognises that changes are needed to ensure that the NPIA remains both a viable organisation whilst also being an institution answerable to the region it proports to defend.


As it currently stands, the NPIA is overseen by the Prime Minister. I can testify that Grosseschnauzer has done a very good job of this oversight during his term as PM. Why is this not enough?
Click to expand...

I believe that Grosseschnauzer has done an excellent job. I don't doubt that. However he isn't the only person to have been PM or the only person who will be the PM. As has happened in the past, it is impossible for someone who is in the NPIA to fulfill the oversight role if they became PM. One answer would be to prohibit NPIA members from becoming PM. Personally, I think that is unfair and as well as being impossible to police.


The purpose of the NPIA is to seek out information for the benefit of the region. Not just for the region's security - while that is a very high priority, it is not the sole priority and should not be made as such. We have other organizations that handle the security end of things just fine. We don't need another one.
Click to expand...

What "other things" does the NPIA do outside of security? From what was said in the old thread, and in this one, that would appear (rightly) to be it's main concern. This is what concerns me, what is the NPIA doing that "benefits" the region? What does that mean? What does it involve?


I agree completely with Flemingovia. These attempts at legislation are no more than attempts to cripple a fully functioning agency at best, or a disguised attempt to subvert our region's security at worst. The fact that this legislation has been suggested multiple times tells me, and the rest of the NPIA, that there are people who do not trust the Agency or its motives. The Agency is based firmly in trust. If the members of the Agency do not trust a potential recruit to be able to handle the rigors of the duty, they will not be allowed into the Agency regardless of how popular or powerful they may be. If you do not trust us and cannot openly tell us that you do not trust us and why, we have no reason to trust you in return.
Click to expand...

I have said before, and will say again to make it clear. No, I do not trust the NPIA. But then, I don't trust anyone in government. And people should not. "Trust the government" is what most totalitarian leaders say. The basis of democracy, of open and free government, is to question government and question authority. This is the system we have in TNP and if you don't like it Hersfold move to The Pacific.


# "An organization unto itself". What the hell does that mean? Of course we are - so is the NPA, so is the Diplomatic Corps, and I don't see anyone trying to shut them down. NPA answers to one person - the MoD. DC answers to one person - MoEA. Both of them are just as capable, if not more so, of creating wonderful little PR mishaps as the NPIA is. So very good at stating the obvious. The NPIA is an organization, everyone.
Click to expand...

This is where you are wrong. The NPA and the DC don't just respond to their elected (unlike the NPIA) Ministers. There are many procedures and limits and regulations regarding the NPA and the DC involving the SC and the RA. Using your arguement the NPIA should have the same kind of checks and balances that the other organisations (NPA and DC) currently have.


# If there were laws regulating what we could do, there would be a lot less we could do. But I suppose that's the point of this legislation, to shut down that which protects our region. The NPIA is working for the benefit of the region. If there is a threat against the region, we may have to appear to join up with the enemy in order to relay information back to us. Oops! RA Oath violation, we're all under arrest. Forget that we're still working for TNP, we all get booted out of the region and now the enemy's even more pissed off at us because we blew our own agent's cover. Brilliant idea!
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I said strawmen. This is totally inaccurate, totally irrelevant and totally crap.


# That is libel. And if you would like to keep making statements such as that, we can talk to the Chief Justice about it. I hear they're much faster with civil complaints than they are with actual trials. There is nothing to support your claim that an NPIA officer would be treated differently than anyone else in this region were they acting against us. If it was determined that one of our number were in fact a traitor, they would be out of the NPIA and region faster than they could sneeze.
Click to expand...

Hersfold as mature as ever. :eyeroll:
 
Former English Colony:
I don't see much point in that change.  Security is mainly the provence of the Security Council, the NPIA is involved in things outside that sometimes, not necessarily related to security, but possibilities. If it couldn't absolutely be connected to security, but could benefit the region, does that mean the NPIA shouldn't look into it?
Click to expand...

The stated purpose of the NPIA, over and over again, has been the security of the region. That is the reason for the degree of secrecy in which the NPIA operates. "Benefit" is incredibly vague, what does it mean? Or, more importantly, who defines it? Does the RA? The elected Cabinet?

The NPIA should, IMO (hence the change), concentrate on what it says it does, the security of the region. The SC is different as it is a checks and balance institution, which is different from the NPIA. The NPIA is an intelligence gathering body.


I have much less of a problem with this, in the sense of disclosure solely to parties concerned with the case, such as defendants, lawyers, and judges.  Wide dispersal would be much more of a problem in my mind.  And definitely, names of informants would need to be guarenteed safe.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

As I said above, the precise procedures would need to be laid out elsewhere though, not in this amendment.

Basically, is the point that we can't trust our PM to provide adequate oversight?  We elect our highest official but think they can't be trusted to evaluate what's in the best interests of TNP and what would be harmful to our image and region?
Click to expand...

I've answered this back to front, as it makes more sense with what I want to say.

The PM can provide adequate oversight, but he could be a member of the NPIA. Not only that, but compare the NPIA with any other institution in TNP, why should the NPIA be that far removed from the systems of checks and balances we have in place?

To this one, I give a big no. 
MoD doesn't necessarily need to be involved in all NPIA operations/discussions, and NPIA isn't all about the NPA, otherwise I imagine it'd be the NPAI.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. However it would appear the "benefits" clause largely refers to helping the NPA.

CJ has *very* little to do with the intelligence matters, only in court cases could I see such a thing being sensible.
SC, plus not being in the NPIA... I'm not quite sure *why*.  NPIA informs the SC of anything that could be a security risk, sometimes before they notice, sometimes not.   
Click to expand...

CJ was added as someone who would be an unbiased and trustworthy official. *shrugs*

Perhaps it might be better now, to look at which individuals could make up the oversight body. As an alternative it could be the cabinet as a whole (suggested before) or perhaps just the PM/MoD/MoEA or it could be the SC.


And thank you for a constructive responce FEC. :)


A few general comments. Technically, the names of NPIA agents don't make any difference, one presumes that they operate under different names when working outside TNP. I couldn't really care either way, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

Part of the problem, with the NPIA's role defined as "benefit", is that (you'd have thought) it would be the elected cabinet or the RA who should define what that benefit means. The lack of trust, as suggested, works both ways (or we just have very poor communication, which- within the cabinet- tends to be the case). It would be useful for me, as MoEA, to have some idea of the regions the NPIA is involved with or considers potential security threats (which is why most places have their external intelligence agencies under their Foreign Ministery). Again, its not a major issue, just slightly irritating.
 
TNP Constitution @ Article III:
C - There is to be a North Pacific Intelligence Agency whose duties are to collect and analyse confidential intelligence information relating to matters of the security for the benefit of the Regional Government and the region as a whole. The Prime Minister shall appoint the leadership of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency after consultation with the personnel of that agency. Any matter concerning the Agency's activities and personnel, except in the case of a criminal prosecution, shall be discussed in confidence without reference in any public record; however, there must may  be disclosure of confidential information if it is to be used in connection with a criminal or impeachment proceedings. The Prime Minister shall chair a body, consisting of the Minister of Defence, the Minister of External Affairs and two members of the Security Council selected by Security Council vote. This body will be responsible to the Cabinet and the Regional Assembly for the ongoing oversight of the Agency. The Legal Code may provide for a code of ethics in the NPIA enforced by the aforementioned body.
Click to expand...



I do find the way that things get moved to FD perplexing. Anyway, this is the current form of legislation being proposed in this thread (on the off-chance we get something through to FD on it), which contains some of the changes suggested by ZS.
 
My take on the matter is that Tresville's proposed change to this paragraph, which is different than this, is all that he seeks concerning the NPIA. Unless there is some additional discussion of his proposal, I am going to post Tresville's actual proposal here, so that it can move forward.

I think one reason why there hasn't been much further discussion of this proposal is because of the subsequent information explaining the agency's policies, and the proposal Tresville posted in connection with that discussion.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
My take on the matter is that Tresville's proposed change to this paragraph, which is different than this, is all tht he seeks concerning the NPIA. Unless there is some additional discussion of his proposal, I am going to post Tresville's actual proposal here, so that it can move forward.
Click to expand...

Although, as you say, the two proposals are entirely seperate with entirely different changes and entirely different aims.

I think one reason why there hasn't been much further discussion of this proposal is because of the subsequent information explaining the agency's policies, and the proposal Tresville posted in connection with that discussion.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, I would have expected there to have been discussion of his proposal...
 
I agree with these changes wholeheartedly. They do not hurt the ability of the NPIA to do its job and they show that we are a free region.
 
The case has not been established that there is still a need for a change as suggested in this proosal, given the proposals made by Tresville, and given the reorganization of the NPIA that is refkected in the information provided by Tresville privately.

Any further discussion of this comparison should go in the private topic.
 
Mister Prime Minister, I strongly disagree with your statement.

I believe that there is a case for a change as suggested in this proposal and it should go to formal discussion. I'd be happy to further discuss Tresville's proposal separately but it is a different proposal which I happen to disagree with.

In any situation, the Regional Assembly has the freedom to consider this legislation and I believe it is worth debating, and worth debating separately. Because this whole process was reinitiated with this proposal in the open area of Preliminary Discussions, the discussion of this amendment should stay here until moved by the Speaker to Formal Discussion.

I am disappointed that the leader of our region's government would so blatantly attempt to keep people from even considering this proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top