FD - Intelligence Oversight

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
As proposed by Tresville.

Section 2. Elected Offices of the Regional Government.
2) Prime Minister

C - There is to be a North Pacific Intelligence Agency whose duties are to collect and analyze confidential intelligence information for the benefit of the Regional Government and the region as a whole. The Prime Minister shall appoint the leadership approve the chosen Director of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency after consultation with the personnel of that agency. Should the Prime Minister decline 3 chosen members, the Regional Assembly will be petitioned to accept that third member. The Prime Minister must be informed by the Director of any change in NPIA internal Rules and Regulations 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 may be disclosure of confidential information in connection with a criminal or impeachment proceeding. The Prime Minister shall be responsible to the Cabinet and the Regional Assembly for the ongoing oversight of the Agency. 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The NPIA gets more autonomy to choose who runs the organization, giving the Prime Minister power to merely approve the chosen nominee. Also if the Prime Minister rejects the first 2 nominees, then the third is put to the Regional Assembly however this amendment states clearly that the Prime Minister is the ONLY civilian oversight for the NPIA.

EDITED
 
Objection: I do not believe that when introducing a proposal to the RA for formal discussion the Speaker ought to editorialise or seek to set the direction of the discussion, which I believe the above post does.

I believe it to be partisan, and request that the speaker remove his comments.
 
He is just explaining what the proposals are, I don't see the problem. I can't see how you can say it's "partisan" in any way. In fact it seems to display an unusual lack of bias from the Speaker.
 
Are the people of TNP so thick that they need quite simple proposals explained to them? Or is the law so poorly drafted that we need it translated for us? I think not on both counts. There have been more complex suggestions that Mr S has not seen the need to explain to us.

I see this as an attempt, not to introduce discussion, but to steer the subsequent discussion. Not the role of a speaker.
 
I don't disagree that the Speaker has lost his ability to be non-partisan. It started back during the vote on the constitutional amendment that Flemingovia proposed where the Speaker mishandled the vote, and has become more pronounced ever since.

Very sad.

The Speaker is nonetheless incorrect as to his statement that under the current process which would be retained in what he discribes as "part one" that the Prime Minister gets to choose the leadership of the NPIA. Under the current process the PM only gets to ratify the choice of the NPIA, and had no right to veto the choice, It is been a formality. Thus the so-called "part 2" is preferable to "part 1."

The more substantial problems is that Haor Chall's proposal (the so-called "part I") was offered before the NPIA revised its internal structure and procedure. The proposal is out-of-date and clearly has not been reviewed in light of the disclosures made by the NPIA to the RA. It needs to be revisited because under the current NPIA process as disclosed to the RA, the proposed oversight committee is excessive and unnecessary. The real purpose of the so-called part 1 is to destroy the NPIA as a meaningful and useful tool for the benefit of the region and its institutions. That is wy it was a bad proposal when it was first ffered, and continues to be a bad idea now.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I don't disagree that the Speaker has lost his ability to be non-partisan. It started back during the vote on the constitutional amendment that Flemingovia proposed where the Speaker mishandled the vote, and has become more pronounced ever since.

Very sad.
Click to expand...

Nice to know I'm the only one you're claiming to be partisan.
The real purpose of the so-called part 1 is to destroy the NPIA as a meaningful and useful tool for the benefit of the region and its institutions. That is wy it was a bad proposal when it was first ffered, and continues to be a bad idea now.
Click to expand...

So anything which proposes to reduce the PM's power is a "bad proposal?" And you claim I've lost my way.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Very sad.
Click to expand...

:cry:

The Speaker is nonetheless incorrect as to his statement that under the current process which would be retained in what he discribes as "part one" that the Prime Minister gets to choose the leadership of the NPIA. Under the current process the PM only gets to ratify the choice of the NPIA, and had no right to veto the choice, It is been  a formality. Thus the so-called "part 2" is preferable to "part 1."
Click to expand...

What happens in practicality and what the Constitution says are (sadly) often two different things, this may well be one of them. However the point stands that this alters the leadership decision-making process whereas the other proposal does not.

Personally I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this amendment (aside from how well written it isn't) either way. Although it must be said the title of this thread is misleading, because this amendment does not cover oversight.

I will respond to your off-topic points (regarding part 1) in the relevant thread.
 
I would like to show my public support for this proposal, since it such an important legislation that needs to be adopted into law.

For those of us that have witnessed dictatorship, we know that the security and intelligence of this region is a top priority. Tresville's plan adds more security and covers holes in our law that may have been over-looked. This is, of course, through no fault of our lawmakers, we are all humans and capable of mistakes.

I am thankful for the Regional Assembly members that did not have to standby and feel powerless during the dictatorship; however, Tresville, myself and many others know how important it is that this never happens again.

We are enjoying a time of peace, but peace is never guarantied.

This proposal must get the two-thirds vote needed to pass and be added into our law.

Thank you.

Yours,
La Duchess de Guidicelli
 
So.

Since this issue is still up for debate and vote, I was wondering why people voted the way they did the first time around. Did you think that this proposal gave the NPIA too much power or too little? Or was it the right amount, albeit implemented/distributed in a fashion you didn't like?

Personally, I am of the belief that the intelligence community should be one enshrouded in far more secrecy and be granted more autonomy than any other governmental entity. The nature of the work precludes bureaucracy and a thorough degree of oversight. Some of us would like to think that all aspects of the government should be subject to much openness and stringent oversight, but I imagine that it is pretty well accepted in the intelligence community that more people knowing is ultimately more detrimental. Not only do you run a greater risk of leaks, but the bureaucracy itself (let's not kid ourselves--TNP bureaucracy is slow as molasses) slows down the effective response and planning time of the agency. Intel work is largely between an informant/agent and their handler. They don't need a third entity looking over their shoulder.

The RA elected the PM; the RA approved the NPIA Director. Have some faith in your votes and the people for whom you cast them.

Also, given the two different Intel-related bills that are up right now, I figured that one was going to pass, and I chose to cast my vote in favor of Tresville's. FYI, the things that turned me off of HC's proposal (no offense taken personally, I hope) is a potential revolving door of non-NPIA officials that will have some oversight in the NPIA, as well as the ambiguity regarding protecting the identity of the informant.
 
carlottaguidicelli:
I would like to show my public support for this proposal, since it such an important legislation that needs to be adopted into law.

For those of us that have witnessed dictatorship, we know that the security and intelligence of this region is a top priority. Tresville's plan adds more security and covers holes in our law that may have been over-looked. This is, of course, through no fault of our lawmakers, we are all humans and capable of mistakes.

I am thankful for the Regional Assembly members that did not have to standby and feel powerless during the dictatorship; however, Tresville, myself and many others know how important it is that this never happens again.

We are enjoying a time of peace, but peace is never guarantied.

This proposal must get the two-thirds vote needed to pass and be added into our law.

Thank you.

Yours,
La Duchess de Guidicelli
Click to expand...

For some of us who witnessed dictatorship, we oppose attempts to introduce it again via the back door. Claims of security and stability before liberty and democracy were common under the NPD and I have no real wish to hear them again.
 
Frankly given the handling of the Destroyers threat, I have absolutely no faith in this proposal other than to insure a lopsided security framework for future bureaucratic bungling.
 
Claims of security and stability before liberty and democracy were common under the NPD and I have no real wish to hear them again.
Click to expand...

Exactly what are you saying?

I did not say that security and stability was the top priority of this region--I said it is one of the top priorities. I believe that many members of this region would agree with that. Without security and stability we have no way of protecting our liberty and democracy, which, of course, is the top priority when introducing new legislation.

As for the back door comment, I have high faith that Tresville would not propose legislation that would allow this to happen--much less the Regional Assembly vote it in. The proposal failed by one vote, I would say there is a lot of support behind it and members of this Assembly thought about this proposal clearly before casting their vote.

La Duchess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top