Proposal:Amendment to Chapter 8 of the legal code

PaulWallLibertarian42

PaulWallLibertarian42

TNPer
Proposal: On NPA "Raiding activities"

Recognizing the North Pacific Army henceforth known herein as the NPA is not established as merely a defending force nor a raiding force.

Respecting the right of the NPA officals, Defense and Security Ministers, Councils, and the Delegacy (Delegate and Vice Delegate) to run the NPA as they see fit and the right of the NPA to remain an autonomus unit within the North Pacific.

Understanding that those within in North Pacific community; citizens, or Regional Assembly members may object to certian operations of the NPA.

Further understanding it sometimes is not practical to wait until an operation in underway before the RA has a chance to try to force a deployment withdraw via vote the following propsal is an amendment to article 8 of the legal code it is stated as follows:
Proposal to amend "Chapter 8: The North Pacific Army Doctrine" to add a "section 6." Titled "On NPA Raiding:"

Section 6. On NPA Raiding Activites.

6.1Whenever Practical The Regional Assembly shall be formally made aware of any potential raiding operation of the NPA be it a live operation or a training exercise and the reason such action is desired when the target area poses no eminent threat to the security and safety of the region or her allies and intrests.

6.2The Regional Assembly shall be able to hold a vote on if the raid should take place or be blocked from taking place by a simple majority vote.

6.3If the Regional Assembly decides a raid operation is NOT in the best intrest of The North Pacific and strikes down such an action by voting nay; The Delegate may override the vote by a veto if the Delegate reasonably believes a raid is in the best intrest of The North Pacific or her allies.

6.4Exceptions to this procedure shall include but not be limited to:

* During times of war as defined in Chapter 6.

* If an Emergency situation exists which constitutes a threat to North Pacifican regional security or that of her allies; as such identified by Defense Ministry, Security Council, and Delegates.

* If publicly pre-stating an operation may put the region or her allies at increased risk of attack from the targeted area or allies of targeted area; Or if a public pre-statement may affect operational security of the NPA or potentially cause harm to any NPA operative.
Click to expand...

Proposed by,


Nathaniel "Nate" Collinsworth
Chair holder of The Democratic States of LibertarianLand's seat on the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific and LibertarianLand Regional Relations Executive.

(Done in character just because :P also realized without intending to writting in WA proposal style.)

*author notes: this is not an attempt to force the NPA into more defender style play, the author is not engaged in NS military game play and as such had no dog in the fight. This is simply an attempt to give the RA more oversight per debate on the role of the NPA as presented in this thread:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7169401/1/

The author has no feelings either way except to curb the events of unneeded raidings so that the NPA does not appear as agressors imposing thier will on the NS community. Any raiding should be conducted in a manner as needed. Remember the NPA is an extention of TNP so how the NPA is percieved abroad so is TNP. As a realitive newcomer to NS and possibly percieved as an outsider to the community and a non-participant in the war gaming of Liberators vs. Raiders I really do not have a strong opinion either way and am only concerned with how our offensive style manuvers may affect our reputation with other regions. My personal real life non-agression defensive military stance may play a personal bias on my part full disclaimer. But i am merely a citizen and RA member of TNP and not in the heirachy of Military officals or executives others may know better than me about the state of NS military affairs. This is simply to gage opinion to see if other RA members feel a change is desired and warranted or if they are okay with things as they are. Thank you. Also keep in mind this is just a very rough first draft and just testing the waters of what public opinion is if such an amendment is even needed or not as is the purpose of debating legislation proposals.
 
Since I proposed it, I would be the one that would have to propose a vote. I could simply in the course of debate if i found this is unnessicary just never call for a vote and it just stays a discussion.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for the entire North Pacific Army here:

We're never going to allow the Regional Assembly to have complete operational control over the NPA. It's idiotic to have the Regional Assembly vote on NPA missions and it's not practical.
 
Thats all I want is opinions. Its like RL. The President can deploy troops but only for 60 days then an offical continuance has to be granted by congress or a withdraw.

I just didnt know if people wanted to be more like RL or want to change or if things were okay as they are.

And no it wouldnt be for every raiding action it says when "practical" and then also lists exceptions. Like i said it was only a rough draft to gage intrest or not.

If people like things as is I have no strong feelings either way. I like to debate for debate sakes. And regardless of opinions expressed still be friends outside of debate.

If there is no debate to be had and majority of people generally like things as is then ill quietly and simply drop the matter. But thanks for the comments so far. I just know the thread in question sparked debate and there were gripes on all sides. Figured instead of the typical "if you dont like it change it" argument then no one does anything its empty arguing. But if i decide to propose something and its not popular then its a statement people like things as they are and no need to continue. And people can not complain that no one tried to propose something.

Like i said im a relative outsider, im just trying to gage public opinion. If everyone likes it as is then that is that; hopefully starting a debate doesnt mean anyone would think any less of me; this is how democracy works - someone thinks something needs addressed or addresses it for sake of addressing and of no one agrees it needs changed then matter is dropped and on to something else.

Thanks for at least entertaining me. I hope to work together with all of you and just want a positive experience for myself and everyone else involved.

Cheers!
 
As much as I semi-lean defender after this whole debate, I think this is just going to cripple the NPA. Nein, nein, nein.
 
Thanks for your comments Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is how I become a better legislator and diplomat by taking all views into comsideration.

My main issue after reading the transilvania thread is the procedure written in to the code of laws that the RA may vote to withdraw forces. While this is all well and good on paper, upon reading the thread and participating there seems to be no recourse on a operation that is no longer active. If an operation is still active the RA can utilize the withdraw procedure if they see fit, however ot if it announced after the fact "hey we did this 3 days ago, a week a ago ...whatever" there is no attempt to let the RA know something is on going to give any RA member an attempt to garner support to a withdraw...so it seems to me if an operation is over and done with and green lighted in secret and the RA is not given a chance to enact the withdraw clause in practice then the withdraw clause is crippled and merely a feel good fluff piece added to the code of laws and has no real teeth. That is just my personal feelings from one basic minimal operation. And pretty much my realy only legitimate gripe. If the process could be amended to allow the RA to know of an operation underway and give us a real chance to withdraw from it instead of waiting til after the fact to say something. Id feel more comfortable about the whole thing. That is my only complaint the ability to withdraw is moot if a operatiom is conducted in secret and the RA or general citizenry isnt notifed until after cessation of operations.
 
If you want to prohibit the NPA from raiding, propose that. Don't propose the NPA informing the RA before every raid for its approval. With that kind of violation of operational security, you might as well just prohibit raiding.

Which of course won't pass the RA. This won't either. Opposed.
 
If this resolution is going to have any chance, it needs to be better written, but I would be willing to support an opportunity for the RA to vote against missions not related to defense or regional security.
 
Cormac:
If you want to prohibit the NPA from raiding, propose that. Don't propose the NPA informing the RA before every raid for its approval. With that kind of violation of operational security, you might as well just prohibit raiding.

Which of course won't pass the RA. This won't either. Opposed.
Click to expand...
I dont nessicarily want to stop them.And also it is never stated for EVERY RAID it states WHEN PRACTICAL and LISTS EXCEPTIONS such as during times of war or when a eminate threat to TNP exists or when announcing could violate operational security or put the military operative at risk.

Simply want the RA to be respected in this matter. It is kind of hard to impliment a withdraw clause of an operatiom someone may have issue with if we arent told an operation is taking place. Like i said at that point it is a feel good piece added to tell people "if you dont like it you can always have it withdrawn" but then no one is told something is on going only after the fact so there is no chance to vote on a withdraw. So im my mind the clause is moot and had no teeth and as such if it isnt going to be respected why have it at all?

In one thread it is stated
The NPA operates by the rules the RA set out for them
Click to expand...

And in another,
We're never going to allow the Regional Assembly to have complete operational control over the NPA.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it is hypocritical if the NPA is bound by the rules set forth by the RA yet then it is stated the "NPA wont allow the RA to exercise controls"

To me it sounds like "We'll listen to the RA only if it is convient for us."

I was first to comment in that thread. All i wanted to know was why? Did a region of 24 violate the safety or security of TNP or her allies? If not why was this done. And also if a region doesnt affect our security then why cant the people have more say in what the army is doing after all the NPA represents TNP. If folks see NPA raiding founderless areas wont they get a negative perception of us? Is that what people want to just raid and for people to see us as oh those TNPers like to go raid people. I just think if youre going to raid an area that doesnt affect our security more notice should be given then "2 days ago this was done (but its over now) I dont care that no native was harmed no one was griefed ect. You can say it was for "training" but it feels like it was for the "lulz" just say youre going to raid places just because and for the "lulz" at least it would be percieved as more honest. I dont know. I havent been here for all the history of NS or TNP. My nation is 16 days old. I dont particpate in military RP or exercises so I more than likey dont know what I am talking about. I just know how I feel and how I percieve things. And if the RA is given certian failsafe oversights (in this case ability to withdraw forces from a field of engagement) a little courtesy should be given DURING MANUEVERS so we may adequetly reserve the right to exercise our controls as written in the legal code not be told of a MANUEVER AFTERWARDS where we cannot have the option to exercise our legal code mandated controls.

That is the crux of my argument;

And if the RA is given certian failsafe oversights (in this case ability to withdraw forces from a field of engagement) a little courtesy should be given DURING MANUEVERS so we may adequetly reserve the right to exercise our controls as written in the legal code not be told of a MANUEVER AFTERWARDS where we cannot have the option to exercise our legal code mandated controls.
Click to expand...

Now if i am off-base please let me know. As always I appreciate all commentary and debate. Thank you.
 
Thanks Ator People. This was my first attempt at writing any legal propsal on NS. Honestly i did it over the course of 2-15 min rest periods at my IRL job. So honestly spent a total of about 30 mins on it.
 
Ator People:
If this resolution is going to have any chance, it needs to be better written, but I would be willing to support an opportunity for the RA to vote against missions not related to defense or regional security.
Click to expand...
If you'd like to prohibit the North Pacific Army from raiding, Ator, then you should propose a law that states so clearly, instead of dancing around the issue with weasel words.

I dont nessicarily want to stop them.And also it is never stated for EVERY RAID it states WHEN PRACTICAL and LISTS EXCEPTIONS such as during times of war or when a eminate threat to TNP exists or when announcing could violate operational security or put the military operative at risk.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll address this. Let's look at the actual language, shall we?

Section 6. On NPA Raiding Activites.

6.1Whenever Practical The Regional Assembly shall be formally made aware of any potential raiding operation of the NPA be it a live operation or a training exercise and the reason such action is desired when the target area poses no eminent threat to the security and safety of the region or her allies and intrests.
Click to expand...

As the Minister of Defense, I can guarantee you that outside of invading a Warzone, informing the Regional Assembly of any military operation, regardless of its nature, and then allowing them to vote on that operation is not practical, has never been practical, and will never be practical. Fir one, it slows down our military decision making making by days, which is completely unacceptable. For two, the risk for a leak in military intelligence and sensitive mission details is so large any operation run by the Regional Assembly in this manner, even defender operations should they be included into this bill, will fail. Not will almost probably fail, but will fail.

It's not practical for the Regional Assembly to be actively voting on NPA missions. Oversight is one thing, but this bill makes it so command of the North Pacific Army is taken away from the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, and the NPA itself, and instead given to the 40+ member Regional Assembly.

To be blunt, that would be a clusterfuck.
 
Bluewolf. Thank you for your insights as a defense minister. I dont play military RP so honestly I have no clue. Basicly all I would like is a little more courtesy of a notice that isnt retroactively two days after the fact. I DO NOT really wish to nor had intention of taking decision making away from military leaders. Just a bit more courtesy on oversight and notification. I hope that is something reasonable to understand.

I would like something useful to come out of debating and not that we just end up all mad at each other. Again thank you and thank the NPA. If we could open dialog about being better notified in certain instances I will be happy and drop the matter. I feel i have raised adequete attention to my feelings on how the notification was or wasnt satisfactory to me. Even if we agree to disagree im cool with that.
 
The North Pacific Army is working on being more transparent, but not all operations are reported to the public in a timely manner and sometimes they're not reported on at all. I have been giving some thought about appointing a designated Public Affairs Officer from the NPA ranks to address this issue.

I'm just annoyed by the fact that if the operation that had kicked off this brouhaha was a defense, no one would even bat a single eye that it was reported two days late. There seems to be a group in the Regional Assembly, most of whom aren't even in the NPA, who want to crack down on the NPA's ability to launch offensive missions, but couldn't give two-shits about defensive operations. It makes me question if those individuals really have TNP's best interests at heart, or are just concerned about a personal R/D agenda.
 
Well I dont R/D. I am not active duty but i did volunteer for the guards to defend the region. If someone comes in and tries to raid my home land im not gonna set idle. If I decide to be interested in military role play id def up my enlistment.

As far as if it were a defense no one would bat an eye yes and no. I try to be consistent. If it was a defense of our region (which undoubtly id participate in) or that of our allies then no no questions asked as that is written into chapter 8 of the legal code not to mention we arent going to set back and be attacked.

But if it were a defense of a random area with no TNP intrests I may ask why? As a non-interventionist I do not like my countries real world military to go off gallavanting being the policemen of the world and so naturally would have misgivings about my NationStates role play army doing the same.

Anyway thank you for addressing this matter and for recognizing a transparancy issue. I fully support an NPA Public affairs officer. And if you need an RA lliasion of some sort PLEASE DO let me know I'd like to volunteer.
 
I am not inclined to support this proposal in any form without a clear case for making any changes to Chapter 8 of the codified Legal Code.

When Chapter 8 was being debated, there was a major split in the Regional Assembly and in the region over what the mission and procedures should be of the NPA, and the role of the Regional Assembly in connection with it. R.A. debate on adoption of The NPA Doctrine as Chapter 8 of the Legal Code

I stepped into the debate to work out and craft a very carefully designed compromise to create a middle path to address the concerns of the different sides of the issue at that time.

As can be seen by the reaction to this instant proposal, there is a lot of resistance to any change in the law that governs the NPA, and I am adverse to reopening a debate that could become highly contentious without a clear, coherent and strong justification for doing so.

The current law is a middle ground. It has seemed to work well, and so far, I don't see anything that supports making unnecessary and unneeded changes to it. I wpuld suggest that members of the R.A. who weren't here for the debate in 2012 would be well served to read the entire thread.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I am not inclined to support this proposal in any form without a clear case for making any changes to Chapter 8 of the codified Legal Code.

When Chapter 8 was being debated, there was a major split in the Regional Assembly and in the region over what the mission and procedures should be of the NPA, and the role of the Regional Assembly in connection with it. R.A. debate on adoption of The NPA Doctrine as Chapter 8 of the Legal Code

I stepped into the debate to work out and craft a very carefully designed compromise to create a middle path to address the concerns of the different sides of the issue at that time.

As can be seen by the reaction to this instant proposal, there is a lot of resistance to any change in the law that governs the NPA, and I am adverse to reopening a debate that could become highly contentious without a clear, coherent and strong justification for doing so.

The current law is a middle ground. It has seemed to work well, and so far, I don't see anything that supports making unnecessary and unneeded changes to it. I wpuld suggest that members of the R.A. who weren't here for the debate in 2012 would be well served to read the entire thread.
Click to expand...
Grosse, I clicked and read the then Defense Ministries inital proposal. On that proposal had I been here at that time I would have supported it with one minor detail that Draft didnt include a withdraw vote from the RA. If they added the ability of the RA to withdraw forces by majority vote anytime in the 2 week assessment period and the ability to vote to withdraw forces at anytime. Had i been here then For What it is worth I would have supported it.
 
Blue Wolf II:
If you'd like to prohibit the North Pacific Army from raiding, Ator, then you should propose a law that states so clearly, instead of dancing around the issue with weasel words.
Click to expand...
Of course I'd like to prohibit the North Pacific Army from raiding not related to national security, but such a law would not pass which is why I won't propose it. What might pass, however, would be a law requiring transparency with regard NPA raids. What good is Chapter 8, Section 5C (quoted below) if the Regional Assembly is never told about an NPA operation?

c. The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPA deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.
Click to expand...

An easy way to get around this clause is simply not to report the deployment to the Assembly.
 
Well then, ban all the raiding and then start banning the raiders from TNP? Good plan.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Grosseschnauzer:
I am not inclined to support this proposal in any form without a clear case for making any changes to Chapter 8 of the codified Legal Code.

When Chapter 8 was being debated, there was a major split in the Regional Assembly and in the region over what the mission and procedures should be of the NPA, and the role of the Regional Assembly in connection with it. R.A. debate on adoption of The NPA Doctrine as Chapter 8 of the Legal Code

I stepped into the debate to work out and craft a very carefully designed compromise to create a middle path to address the concerns of the different sides of the issue at that time.

As can be seen by the reaction to this instant proposal, there is a lot of resistance to any change in the law that governs the NPA, and I am adverse to reopening a debate that could become highly contentious without a clear, coherent and strong justification for doing so.

The current law is a middle ground. It has seemed to work well, and so far, I don't see anything that supports making unnecessary and unneeded changes to it. I wpuld suggest that members of the R.A. who weren't here for the debate in 2012 would be well served to read the entire thread.
Click to expand...
Grosse, I clicked and read the then Defense Ministries inital proposal. On that proposal had I been here at that time I would have supported it with one minor detail that Draft didnt include a withdraw vote from the RA. If they added the ability of the RA to withdraw forces by majority vote anytime in the 2 week assessment period and the ability to vote to withdraw forces at anytime. Had i been here then For What it is worth I would have supported it.
Click to expand...
The point I was making is that the issue was highly contentious, and that the current law as currently in force, allows the Executive and the Legislative branch to make policy in this area without the need for statutory change, and that the issue of raiding or not raiding that was raised during the 2012 debate was addressed by creating a mechanism for policy to be set or changed by the Delegate and his Cabinet and that the R.A. could change policy, or disapprove a specific deployment.

While prior notice to the R.A. of a deployment is not required, there is a mechanism for an expedited vote in the R.A. to direct a withdrawal either when it is not covered by a stated policy as to deployment, or because the R.A. disagrees with a specific deployment under a policy adopted by the Delegate and Cabinet, or by the R.A.

The mechanism already exists. I would suggest using it rather than having amendments to the Legal Code that would create inconsistencies in the law governing the NPA.
 
Grosse is right. The issue was highly contested and a compromise was necessary to allow the region to move on from the subject. As I see it the issue was put to bed and it is only now that it is rearing it's head once again (since then the region has been relatively quiet on the subject).
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The point I was making is that the issue was highly contentious, and that the current law as currently in force, allows the Executive and the Legislative branch to make policy in this area without the need for statutory change, and that the issue of raiding or not raiding that was raised during the 2012 debate was addressed by creating a mechanism for policy to be set or changed by the Delegate and his Cabinet and that the R.A. could change policy, or disapprove a specific deployment.

While prior notice to the R.A. of a deployment is not required, there is a mechanism for an expedited vote in the R.A. to direct a withdrawal either when it is not covered by a stated policy as to deployment, or because the R.A. disagrees with a specific deployment under a policy adopted by the Delegate and Cabinet, or by the R.A.

The mechanism already exists. I would suggest using it rather than having amendments to the Legal Code that would create inconsistencies in the law governing the NPA.
Click to expand...

Grosse, if the NPA failed to report a mission to the Regional Assembly, how is it operating in accord with Chapter 8, Section 5C?

4. The NPA must operate so that:
[...]
c. The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPA deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.
Click to expand...

It seems to be that if the NPA is not operating so that the Regional Assembly can override any deployment then it would not be operating in accord with that clause.

[edit: no need for some many nested quotes]
 
While prior notice to the R.A. of a deployment is not required, there is a mechanism for an expedited vote in the R.A. to direct a withdrawal either when it is not covered by a stated policy as to deployment, or because the R.A. disagrees with a specific deployment under a policy adopted by the Delegate and Cabinet, or by the R.A.

The mechanism already exists. I would suggest using it rather than having amendments to the Legal Code that would create inconsistencies in the law governing the NPA.
Click to expand...

My point of contention was the Transparency issue which BlueWolf and McM has addressed. It is hard for the RA to use the existing mechinism of proposing an expedited vote for a withdraw when a notification is given after the operation is over. You cant vote to withdraw an operation you may have an issue with when it is announced and you find out about it after it is over.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
While prior notice to the R.A. of a deployment is not required, there is a mechanism for an expedited vote in the R.A. to direct a withdrawal either when it is not covered by a stated policy as to deployment, or because the R.A. disagrees with a specific deployment under a policy adopted by the Delegate and Cabinet, or by the R.A.

The mechanism already exists. I would suggest using it rather than having amendments to the Legal Code that would create inconsistencies in the law governing the NPA.
Click to expand...

My point of contention was the Transparency issue which BlueWolf and McM has addressed. It is hard for the RA to use the existing mechinism of proposing an expedited vote for a withdraw when a notification is given after the operation is over. You cant vote to withdraw an operation you may have an issue with when it is announced and you find out about it after it is over.
Click to expand...
That question is the sort of policy issue this law was intended to leave to the officials of the day to handle. Please look at the last couple of pages of the thread I linked to in my earlier post for an explanation of how that is intended to function under Chapter 8.
This is the same sort of issue that can be settled by the adoption of a procedure by the R.A., or by the Cabinet, in the absence of a stated policy approved by either.
If the deployment was quickly over, then you can hold the executive responsible if there are issues. That's why we have elections and recall. There is also a procedure to remove the head of mandatory ministries. So accountability is there if it is needed.
 
Ator People:
Grosseschnauzer:
The point I was making is that the issue was highly contentious, and that the current law as currently in force, allows the Executive and the Legislative branch to make policy in this area without the need for statutory change, and that the issue of raiding or not raiding that was raised during the 2012 debate was addressed by creating a mechanism for policy to be set or changed by the Delegate and his Cabinet and that the R.A. could change policy, or disapprove a specific deployment.

While prior notice to the R.A. of a deployment is not required, there is a mechanism for an expedited vote in the R.A. to direct a withdrawal either when it is not covered by a stated policy as to deployment, or because the R.A. disagrees with a specific deployment under a policy adopted by the Delegate and Cabinet, or by the R.A.

The mechanism already exists. I would suggest using it rather than having amendments to the Legal Code that would create inconsistencies in the law governing the NPA.
Click to expand...

Grosse, if the NPA failed to report a mission to the Regional Assembly, how is it operating in accord with Chapter 8, Section 5C?

4. The NPA must operate so that:
[...]
c. The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPA deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.
Click to expand...

It seems to be that if the NPA is not operating so that the Regional Assembly can override any deployment then it would not be operating in accord with that clause.

[edit: no need for some many nested quotes]
Click to expand...
As I noted in my last post in response to PaulWallLibertarian42, you have the Cabinet or the R.A. adopt a policy or procedure on the topic to implement the requirement, or hold the officials involved accountable under the existing framework who didn't follow it.

In either event, the statute already directs the NPA to operate in a manner that permits the R.A. decide whether to vote on an expedited basis, so it's self evident that a failure for the NPA to operate is a violation of the Legal Code provision.

I would think that is quite apparent and doesn't need an amendment to the Legal Code. Just proper implementation.
 
Ator People:
Grosse, if the NPA failed to report a mission to the Regional Assembly, how is it operating in accord with Chapter 8, Section 5C?
Click to expand...
We did not "fail to report", we do not have to report anything and nothing in the law specifically states we do. If Ator is suggesting that the NPA is under a lawful obligation to report every single action we undertake directly to the Regional Assembly, he is the first one to state such a notion since the NPA Doctrine was written in 2012.

Also, I would like to point out Chapter 8 Section 5C states that the NPA shall not alter the region's chosen embassy list against the wishes of the region's natives. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with not telling the Regional Assembly about every mission we do ever.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I'm going to go out on a limb and speak for the entire North Pacific Army here: We're never going to allow the Regional Assembly to have complete operational control over the NPA.
Click to expand...
I will not support a requirement for the NPA to get pre-approval of missions from the RA. As others have said, that renders the military unusable.

I would support a requirement for the NPA to inform the RA of missions that have been undertaken, just so that there can be debates such as we have been having. the NPA acts in our name, flying our flag. We ought to have some input into the sort of activities they get up to.

Regarding Blue Wolf's post above, the tone of the language is deeply disturbing. I agree that it is a bad idea for the RA to have complete operational control over the NPA. But to say that the NPA "will not ALLOW" it is worryingly bellicose language from the Minister of Defence towards the Regional Assembly. It is not for the MoD to allow or deny the Regional Assembly to exert its authority over the army, should it decide to do so.
 
Thank you Flemingovia.

Uhm, may I make a motion to end debate? I feel my proposal has garnered the desired effect and reform on better communication is underway and a real discussion is happening in the private halls on the role of NPA and BlueWolf and McM have agreed to address and be more transparent with NPA operations as they happen in real time or as close as possible so the RA may be able to enforce clause 4.C in chapter 8 of the legal code if it saw fit. Not to make the RA be the complete governing board of the NPA.

I feel discussion has been facilitated on improved comminication as my "controversial" proposal got your attention which was my desired end result to simply grab attention and facilitate discussion on more transparancy on such matters and RAs practical ability to enforce clause 4.C.

As such I'd like to at this time withdraw my proposal and if further discussion is desired please see the poll in the Private halls for TNP citizens regarding the role and scope of NPA and I take BlueWolf and McM at thier word they will endeavour to better communicate to the RA and advise it of on going operations in a more timely manner so that real discussion can occur and give clause 4.C a real chance of being enacted if it would be deigned nessicary. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion.
 
Id still like to facilitate discussion but in a more proper venue. I take McM and bluewolf at thier word they will endeavour to facilitate more transparency and apprise the community in a timely manner on military manuevers so the RA can decide if the movements are consistent with the legal code governing the military or if the actions are in need of withdraw. However like Flem i am shocked at some of the comments regarding the role of RA oversight over the NPA while the NPA shouldnt have to get approval to do anything from the RA beforehand I do feel it IS PROPER that the NPA command, Ministry of D or the Delegacy inform the RA in a proper time and prompt manner of when active engagments are being carried out. So the RA may decide if they need to act to stop the action or let the NPA carry on as I feel per the legal codes and the oversights in Ch 8 clause 4.C.

I do feel the RA should have a proper role in checks and balances of the military. It is not the job of the Ministry or Executive to dictate the relationship between NPA and RA. The RA is the Legislative body the Executive carrys out the laws the RA Passes the Defense Ministry handles every day military matters, and it is the Judicary to intrepret the legal code.

If the RA and the Executive and Defense Dept. Cannot work out a compromise and adopt a proper policy which I feel in good faith McM and bluewolf are trying to do and also get a general consensus in the private hall poll. Ive been thinking I will write to the judicary and get a Justices opinion on if the NPA should report troop movements of agression or Defense to the RA in a real time as it happens so the RA may decide if it needs to enact clause C or not; if it is in the Judicary power to do so. But I hope it doesnt need to come to that. I hope we can find an agreeable compromise ourselves in this matter.
 
flemingovia:
Regarding Blue Wolf's post above, the tone of the language is deeply disturbing. I agree that it is a bad idea for the RA to have complete operational control over the NPA. But to say that the NPA "will not ALLOW" it is worryingly bellicose language from the Minister of Defence towards the Regional Assembly. It is not for the MoD to allow or deny the Regional Assembly to exert its authority over the army, should it decide to do so.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that I would not allow the Regional Assembly to exert the authority it currently has under the law. In fact, what I said verbatim was "We're never going to allow the Regional Assembly to have complete operational control over the NPA."

Indeed, the day the Regional Assembly is allowed to have complete operational control of the North Pacific Army is the day the NPA ceases to be an Army at all and starts its long nightmare as a bureaucratic hell-spawn, eventually ending in complete organizational death. I would be a failure as a Minister of Defense if I allowed such a travesty to occur on my watch.

Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, Flem, and not read into them, especially when you start seeing things I never said.
 
As I have said, I do not think such control should be exercised by the Regional Assembly. But even if the Regional Assembly chose to exercise such control, it is not for you to allow it or deny it.

For someone very hot on chain of command you seem to forget where sovereignty lies in this region.
 
Once again, I'm not denying anything. The Regional Assembly has a very limited set number of powers and I will not deny nor refuse any of their legal powers, nor did I say I would not obey a lawful order from the Regional Assembly. That being said, the Regional Assembly does not generally have the power to micromanage the NPA in its day to day operations.

What I am trying to convey is that any move to pass laws that would allow the RA to micromanage the NPA I will fight tooth and nail against and I will encourage all NPA members to do the same. We will ensure that the Regional Assembly does not strangle the NPA to death with unneeded restrictive bureaucratic nonsense, such as the RA voting on our operations before they even happen, to use the bill proposed here as a specific example.

I believe I have a granted right and responsibility as a Regional Assembly member to lobby for what I believe is in the region's best interest. I also have a personal responsibility, as Minister of Defense, to ensure the Army runs smoothly and effectively. Keeping the Regional Assembly out of every minor NPA affair, such as daily operational planning, and letting them only have authority over major actions, such as War Declarations, overlaps with both my responsibility as an RA member and as the MiniDef.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top