Kiwi:
Crushing Our Enemies:
To be honest, I forgot all about it.
My only issue with it as written is that there is still no oversight. The only people who are mentioned in the entire document are the delegate, the director, and the agents. If anyone in the agency does something illegal, it's basically up to the delegate and the director whether or not they should be punished for it. Since the agency is immune to FOIA requests, no one will ever know anything that an agent does except the director and sometimes the delegate, unless one of them chooses to reveal it. It's too easy to cover up illegal activity.
It's an intelligence agency. That's the price you pay. Have a little bit of faith in the agents, the director and the delegate.
Chances are that someone will jump up and down if there is illegal activity.
Emphasis mine. Intelligence agencies tend to be insular, and they tend not to invite people with contrasting perspectives to join their ranks. So no, it's highly
unlikely that someone would "jump up and down" if they did anything illegal. The former NPIA (whose members include some of those who will be involved in this endeavor)
have done things which are, at best, questionably legal.
Our government is built on a fundamental structure of oversight and transparency - disregarding that for any reason, particularly based on "faith", is not in keeping with our strong traditions, nor is it in keeping with our established laws.
As to the charter, I think it's frankly crap. It fails to restrict the organization from infiltrating or undermining our allies, or our friends. It fails to provide any clear mission for the organization, beyond "gather intelligence" which is vague, and is also sufficiently broad so as to allow the organization to basically conduct any activity it wishes, provided it's not illegal IRL, in violation of NS rules, or forum-crashing.
The personal information protections are a nice gesture, but are meaningless. The regulations for becoming an agent are incredibly easy to move through in a non-substantive manner, such that any individual with whom the Agency wishes to share information, could easily become an Agent with a puppet, and then be given any and all information, regardless of any need for such information, solely at the discretion of the Director. Not exactly the stringent privacy protections that the document claims. Even if you decide, based on "faith", that this scenario is unlikely to come to pass, that would still allow the NPIA to share any and all personal information it gathers within the organization. Is that really what we want?
Speaking briefly of the requirements to be an Agent, the Oath is crap. It binds the agents to only obey the rules of the Agency, and not to actually act in TNP's best interests, or to obey the law. Later, it gives them the
option to disclose breaches of the law, but says nothing about any consequences which will come of that, either inside of or outside of the NPIA. Any Agent who disclosed potential illegal activity would, it is reasonable to assume, be sacrificing their NPIA position, and possibly subjecting themselves to prosecution, on behalf of their ideals. And the only people to whom they're allowed to report violations are those people who are already supposed to be aware of operations that are ongoing, and who quite likely may have already approved the operations which would be resulting in the illegal activity. Reporting breaches of the law to the people who are already overseeing the activities that lead to breaches of the law, is not oversight.
There's nothing about transparency. At all. Transparency is required of all government officials and bodies by the Bill of Rights.
Did I mention that there's nothing requiring the NPIA to abide by the treaties the region has signed? It can be vaguely inferred from the fact that NPIA agents must be citizens, but there's nothing explicit. A conspicuous omission, much like the omission of true oversight, or anything requiring Agents to abide by TNP law. In fact, the words 'law', 'constitution', and 'bill of rights' don't ever appear in the Charter. Not relevant?
As to the office of the Director, he/she can only be removed by the Delegate (unilaterally), or by majority request of the people whom that Director has selected to serve in the NPIA. It is of note that the Director would be subject to recall - a nice nod to accountability, but given the history of recalls in TNP, overwhelming evidence of gross negligence tends to be the minimum for a successful recall, and with zero disclosure or oversight mechanisms in place, I think we can all agree that that's a token nod that is largely meaningless.
That's all that jumps out at me for now, but I'm sure there's more.
tl;dr zero protections for civil rights, zero requirement to abide by treaty or legal obligations, zero substantive oversight, zero accountability, paltry personal privacy protections and a useless process for reporting breaches of the law. At least it bans forum destruction - that's something.
) feedback in this thread. This was based slightly on the original charter authored by Eluvatar but has been changed significantly. A thank you to R3n for his help with this document.
The changing from Officer to Agents was my fault. You are right, I forgot to check for officers and didn't read it after posting here. 
