[Passed] Military Modernization Act

[9003]

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

37. The North Pacific Army is the military of The North Pacific. The executive officer charged with military affairs will endeavour to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.
38. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region.
39. The Regional Assembly may declassify an operation by a majority vote.
40. The following are Class A restricted actions:

• changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
• closing embassies;
• altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
• suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
• closing or opening a regional poll;

41. The following are Class B restricted actions:

• applying a password to a region;
• banning or ejecting nations native to a region;

42. Members of The North Pacific Army holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region as part of an operation in that region may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
43. Members of The North Pacific Army may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restrictions, and may serve as Regional Officers in foreign regions during such joint operations, but may not perform any restricted actions themselves in the joint operation, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
44. The Delegate or Executive officer in charge of the military may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all Class A restricted actions. The Regional Assembly must be informed as soon as these exemptions are made. Class B exemptions must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
45. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that The North Pacific Army perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.
46. The Regional Assembly may require The North Pacific Army to withdraw from any operation, and impose other requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation, by majority vote.
47. Nations wishing to join The North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

2. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.39 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class A restricted actions.

3. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.40 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class B restricted actions.

Spoiler: Old suggestion

1. Section 7.5 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

34. The North Pacific's foreign, internal, and military affairs will each be overseen by at least one Executive Officer other than the Delegate.

2. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

35. The North Pacific will have a military. The military must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations.
36. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all operations undertaken by the military unless they are classifed by the delagate or the Executive Officer in charge of the military.
37. The regional assembly may declassify an operation with a simple majority vote.

Spoiler: Old suggestion

38. The following are Class A restricted actions:

• changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
• closing embassies;
• altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
• suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
• closing or opening a regional poll;

39. The following are Class B restricted actions:

• banning or ejecting nations native to a region;
• applying a password to a region;

40. Members of the military holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region in service of the military may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions, but may not carry out any restricted actions themselves without proper exemptions.
42. The Delegate or Executive officer in charge of the military may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all Class A restricted actions. These exemptions must be readily accessible by the Regional Assembly. Class B exemptions are subject to a simple majority confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
43. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that the military perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.
44. The Regional Assembly may, by simple majority vote, require the military to withdraw from any operation, and impose additional practicable requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation.
45. Nations wishing to join the military must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the proper authorities without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

3. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.39 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class A restricted actions.

4. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.40 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class B restricted actions.

Spoiler: Old 7.6

Old section 7.6:

37. The executive officer charged with military affairs will endeavour to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.
38. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region.
39. When deployed in a foreign region, members of The North Pacific Army will refrain from excessive use of force including altering the regions chosen embassy list or password protecting the region. Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies.
40. When deployed in a foreign region, members of The North Pacific Army will refrain from causing permanent harm to the region, including forcibly remove natives or refounding the region. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies, subject to the approval of the Regional Assembly by a majority vote or pursuant to a declaration of war.
41. Any member of the North Pacific Army may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact regional security for any reason that is deemed appropriate by the Delegate or the executive officer charged with military affairs.
42. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all military operations upon deployment, with the exception of operations which the Delegate specifically classifies. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of any classified operation, as well as the reasons for the classification, as soon as possible following deployment.
43. The North Pacific Army must promptly withdraw from any operation that the Regional Assembly cancels by majority vote. Where an operation is cancelled, the North Pacific Army must take reasonable steps to restore or to provide natives with the means to restore any region subject to the operation.
44. Nations wishing to join the North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honour and by my conscience, I will endeavour to be a trustworthy and faithful soldier of the North Pacific Army. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavour to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavour to represent The North Pacific with honour and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

As originally drafted by Cretox but further modified by myself with contributions from the current high command staff of the NPA. Below is my logic behind each section please let me know if I forgot somthing or overlooked an importnat part. Likewise I most certainly miss spelled SOMTHING in this bill.

Spoiler: 7.5.34 change

This change simply merges the required exutives together for sake of brevity in our laws.

Spoiler: 7.6.35 change

35. The North Pacific will have a military. The military must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations.

This establishes that the military exisits legaly and is bound by TNP law. The reason for moving away from ouright saying the NPA or any other named org is two fold. First to close the loophole allowing the delagate from creating a Navy that does not have to follow the same laws as the Army simply becuse of a differce in name. Secoundly this gives more power to the milatary leadership to steer and direct as needed in the ever changing world of R/D while upholding that the milatary is part of and represents TNP.

Spoiler: 7.6.36 change

36. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all operations undertaken by the military.

This was changed to be cut and dry. No loopholes no exceptions. Simply everything we do needs to be reported for transparency. Allowing the command staff the liberity to act as they deem nescerary while not removing any checks and balances.

Spoiler: 7.6.37-38 Changes

37. The following are Class A restricted actions:

• changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
• closing embassies;
• altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
• suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
• closing or opening a regional poll;
• applying a password to a region;

38. The following are Class B restricted actions:

• banning or ejecting nations native to a region;

The current law handles expetions is a increadbly sloppy and hard to understand way. This change clearly divides them into two catagories the first being class A the secound being class B. Class A are considered "mild" in the R/D world and common place and easily reverable. Class B are more aggressive actions that are harder to reverse and have longer term impacts.

Spoiler: 7.6.39 changes

39. Members of the military holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region in service of the military may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.

We are currently stunted on our ability to partake in joint ops and furthering political realships with others due to our laws. This allows us to function in jont ops and not force our restritive laws onto other organizations. We have missed out on operations becuse our allies knew our laws would prevent the end goal. This changes that allowing us to help our allies when they require our aid.

Spoiler: 7.6.40-41 changes

40. The Delegate or a designee thereof may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all restricted actions. These exemptions must be readily accessible by the Regional Assembly. Class B exemptions are subject to a simple majority confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
41. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that the military perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.

Allows the Delegate or MoD to exempt regions from class A actions. Class B still require a RA vote. Class A actions are easily reversable by natives thus it is far easier to grant exmeptions for them. Class B is higher level and required before a region is burned thus an RA vote.

War is the same as always

Spoiler: 7.6.42 changes

42. The Regional Assembly may, by simple majority vote, require the military to withdraw from any operation, and impose additional practicable requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation.

Grants additoal power to the RA allowing for not only the withdrawl from a operation but allowing the RA to establish a path to reconcilation for the actions done should the RA feel the need to.
Checks and blanaces are important.

Spoiler: 7.6.43 changes

43. Nations wishing to join the military must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the proper authorities without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

New oath to reflect the fact that the milatary serves TNP and is reflective of all above changes.

 

[Comfed]

This establishes that the military exisits legaly and is bound by TNP law. The reason for moving away from ouright saying the NPA or any other named org is two fold. First to close the loophole allowing the delagate from creating a Navy that does not have to follow the same laws as the Army simply becuse of a differce in name. Secoundly this gives more power to the milatary leadership to steer and direct as needed in the ever changing world of R/D while upholding that the milatary is part of and represents TNP.

I have always maintained that the idea that the Delegate could create a "Navy" or some other military and claim that it is an official military separate from the NPA is silly and would be thrown out of Court if it were to come up. The law as currently written establishes the North Pacific Army as "the military of The North Pacific".

This was changed to be cut and dry. No loopholes no exceptions. Simply everything we do needs to be reported for transparency. Allowing the command staff the liberity to act as they deem nescerary while not removing any checks and balances.

This new wording is worse because it doesn't actually clear anything up. All it does is remove the Delegate's ability to classify operations and inform the Regional Assembly at a later time. How this is supposed to clear anything up I don't know.

The current law handles expetions is a increadbly sloppy and hard to understand way. This change clearly divides them into two catagories the first being class A the secound being class B. Class A are considered "mild" in the R/D world and common place and easily reverable. Class B are more aggressive actions that are harder to reverse and have longer term impacts.

Why is password-protecting a region, an action which is usually undertaken to destroy a region, included in Class A?
With this new language (that removes "The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region" in two cases) I worry that it could decrease their significance and deemphasize the fact that the NPA is supposed to act respectfully and professionally in all operations.

We are currently stunted on our ability to partake in joint ops and furthering political realships with others due to our laws. This allows us to function in jont ops and not force our restritive laws onto other organizations. We have missed out on operations becuse our allies knew our laws would prevent the end goal. This changes that allowing us to help our allies when they require our aid.

So you are saying that we have missed out on ops to destroy regions because they would violate our ethical policies against destroying regions? Where is the problem?

New oath to reflect the fact that the milatary serves TNP and is reflective of all above changes.

What exactly are the changes in this new oath?

Grants additoal power to the RA allowing for not only the withdrawl from a operation but allowing the RA to establish a path to reconcilation for the actions done should the RA feel the need to.
Checks and blanaces are important.

I don't think adding the ability for the Regional Assembly to force the NPA to undertake an action is a very good idea. I'm not sure that the clause giving the RA the ability to force the NPA to withdraw is a good addition at all, to be honest.

 

[9003]

Why is password-protecting a region, an action which is usually undertaken to destroy a region, included in Class A?

I could see moving passwording to B as I agree it serves only to destroy a region

With this new language (that removes "The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region" in two cases) I worry that it could decrease their significance and deemphasize the fact that the NPA is supposed to act respectfully and professionally in all operations.

Rather than just saying hey go be respectful this outlines how to be respectful such as not posting on the RMB

So you are saying that we have missed out on ops to destroy regions because they would violate our ethical policies against destroying regions? Where is the problem?

We missed out on an operation in warzone Asia, Not a destruction or ethical issue. It was to take over a BoM asset. Our requirements for public disclosure ahead of time of such an operation would have jeopardize the operation and thus our allies acted with out us.

 

[St George]

We missed out on an operation in warzone Asia, Not a destruction or ethical issue. It was to take over a BoM asset. Our requirements for public disclosure ahead of time of such an operation would have jeopardize the operation and thus our allies acted with out us.

I'm failing to see what in our laws makes public disclosure ahead of time required.

 

[9003]

I'm failing to see what in our laws makes public disclosure ahead of time required.

I’ll defer that to @Pallaith who felt that we could not classify the op. It was a BoM target that was intended to be greifed. Hence requiring a vote ahead of time (breaking opsec and putting the operation at risk) or classifying it a power that currently only the delegate can use.

 

[St George]

I’ll defer that to @Pallaith who felt that we could not classify the op. It was a BoM target that was intended to be greifed. Hence requiring a vote ahead of time (breaking opsec and putting the operation at risk) or classifying it a power that currently only the delegate can use.

With all due respect to the delegate, he's wrong. His interpretation of the law is wrong and there's nothing backing up his position here. It's just not true that it required a vote ahead of time.

And it's this kind of misinterpretation of the law that seemingly happens over and over again despite the law being clear that undermines the operational capability of the NPA in the eyes of our allies. If people in government weren't peddling this misinformation, we'd be in a better place.

 

[9003]

With all due respect to the delegate, he's wrong. His interpretation of the law is wrong and there's nothing backing up his position here. It's just not true that it required a vote ahead of time.

And it's this kind of misinterpretation of the law that seemingly happens over and over again despite the law being clear that undermines the operational capability of the NPA in the eyes of our allies. If people in government weren't peddling this misinformation, we'd be in a better place.

The court not to long ago stated that we must abide by our laws even on joint ops lead by others so that would mean we have to get an exemption to partake in that specific op, that would have been what required a vote.

 

[St George]

The court not to long ago stated that we must abide by our laws even on joint ops lead by others so that would mean we have to get an exemption to partake in that specific op, that would have been what required a vote.

No. That's not correct and not how the NPA has operated over its life. Even after that court ruling - and the subsequent amending of the legal code to address those concerns - the NPA has taken part in operations where an exemption was passed after the fact. A prior exemption has never been a requirement, and exemptions after the fact are valid.

 

[9003]

No. That's not correct and not how the NPA has operated over its life. Even after that court ruling - and the subsequent amending of the legal code to address those concerns - the NPA has taken part in operations where an exemption was passed after the fact. A prior exemption has never been a requirement, and exemptions after the fact are valid.

relevant court case https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/2#post-10495197 (simply for those who view this later and are curious.

39. When deployed in a foreign region, members of The North Pacific Army will refrain from excessive use of force including altering the regions chosen embassy list or password protecting the region. Before leaving, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies.
40. When deployed in a foreign region, members of The North Pacific Army will refrain from causing permanent harm to the region, including forcibly remove natives or refounding the region. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorised by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies, subject to the approval of the Regional Assembly by a majority vote or pursuant to a declaration of war.

emphasizes mine. While we could have attended the jump we would have had to rush a vote within minutes as they wanted to act quickly or disclose the operation ahead of time. More importantly, in this particular op, the following line would allow us to partake:

39. Members of the military holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region in service of the military may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.

The exemptions themselves remain mostly the same outside of splitting and calling them class A and class B vs the old system.

Of course I am open to suggestions to changes to meet the needs as anyone sees fit.

 

[St George]

relevant court case https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/2#post-10495197 (simply for those who view this later and are curious.


emphasizes mine. While we could have attended the jump we would have had to rush a vote within minutes as they wanted to act quickly or disclose the operation ahead of time. More importantly, in this particular op, the following line would allow us to partake:

The exemptions themselves remain mostly the same outside of splitting and calling them class A and class B vs the old system.

Of course I am open to suggestions to changes to meet the needs as anyone sees fit.

Yeah that doesn't say "subject to prior approval", just "subject to approval". Approval after the fact is valid.

These changes are mostly fine and I'm glad the awful suggestion of giving High Command a veto over deputy and MoD appointments wasn't adopted.

 

[Pallaith]

For the record, I have brought exemptions to vote within hours of an operation, and the vote has happened after the op is concluded. The problem is there is a perception that we cannot participate in ops like the one in Warzone Asia, and our own citizens and government officials are cautious because of prior Court action and litigious players.

I think the point of the oath was for all soldiers to pledge to act with respect to other regions rather than just have it in the legal code.

I echo concerns about removing language for classifying ops. I think it should be explicitly considered so we don't have to worry about people splitting hairs over what is prompt.

I take particular notice of the mandatory ministries clause. It was theoretically possible for the delegate to take on any of those roles themselves, and given how difficult staffing can sometimes people, this is a useful option to have. This bill would have that option removed. Why?

I admit I am having trouble with the "military" language. I did like having NPA explicitly in there, and I agree with Comfed that the perceived "call it something else to have no rules" thing would never fly. I think it's fine but I'm not sure I like the style.

Regarding restricted actions: I would move the password line above the banning nations line. And I would have some sort of wording (not sure where) that explicitly, once and for all, limits the restriction to NPA soldiers - something that keeps the soldiers from doing any of the prohibited things, but leaves open the possibility for attendance in joint ops where the other soldiers do not have those restrictions. Given our concern over attending joint ops has been discussed in this thread, I think we should be sure this bill as written actually does something about that.

 

[9003]

I take particular notice of the mandatory ministries clause. It was theoretically possible for the delegate to take on any of those roles themselves, and given how difficult staffing can sometimes people, this is a useful option to have. This bill would have that option removed. Why?

If we have mandatory offices why should they be allowed to be half-assed between the delegate's role and the other role.

I echo concerns about removing language for classifying ops. I think it should be explicitly considered so we don't have to worry about people splitting hairs over what is prompt.

Adding this in now

Regarding restricted actions: I would move the password line above the banning nations line. And I would have some sort of wording (not sure where) that explicitly, once and for all, limits the restriction to NPA soldiers - something that keeps the soldiers from doing any of the prohibited things, but leaves open the possibility for attendance in joint ops where the other soldiers do not have those restrictions. Given our concern over attending joint ops has been discussed in this thread, I think we should be sure this bill as written actually does something about that.

tweaked the line to be forward and clear.

 

[Pallaith]

@9003 I actually don’t see you took my suggestion on moving the order of the class B restricted actions. I assume clause 41 was your fix for allowing us to participate in joint ops where our restrictions are not followed. I would propose the following:

41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions, but may not carry out any restricted actions themselves without proper exemptions from the Delegate.

 

[9003]

And with that I added the change from above and I motion for a vote.

 

[Pallaith]

@Sil Dorsett just wanted to make sure the Speaker’s office was aware of this motion, which I will second for good measure though I don’t believe it is necessary.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

@Sil Dorsett just wanted to make sure the Speaker’s office was aware of this motion, which I will second for good measure though I don’t believe it is necessary.

Thanks for the heads up. The bill is now in formal debate for the next five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.

 

[Comfed]

I see that the unfortunate clause allowing the RA to basically give orders to the NPA is still there.

 

[Pallaith]

I see that the unfortunate clause allowing the RA to basically give orders to the NPA is still there.

You mean the one you thought was new but was actually just a rewrite of something the RA could already do?

 

[Comfed]

You mean the one you thought was new but was actually just a rewrite of something the RA could already do?

Where does the RA have the power to do this currently? To be clear, I am not referring to the ability of the RA to cancel an operation, I am referring to the specific new language that allows the RA to dictate terms of withdrawal to the NPA.

44. The Regional Assembly may, by simple majority vote, require the military to withdraw from any operation, and impose additional practicable requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Pallaith]

Where does the RA have the power to do this currently? To be clear, I am not referring to the ability of the RA to cancel an operation, I am referring to the specific new language that allows the RA to dictate terms of withdrawal to the NPA.
(emphasis mine)

The RA already has that power. If an operation violates the RA’s expectations or becomes unacceptable they can pass resolutions and laws to further restrict it. I suppose putting it here makes it much easier and reactive, but it’s hardly an unforeseen option they couldn’t have availed themselves of if they wished. So is your issue that it makes that easier and puts the idea in their head?

 

[Gorundu]

Where does the RA have the power to do this currently? To be clear, I am not referring to the ability of the RA to cancel an operation, I am referring to the specific new language that allows the RA to dictate terms of withdrawal to the NPA.

It is a completely reasonable extension to the clause. Why shouldn't the RA be able to dictate the terms of withdrawal if it can already force a withdrawal?

As for the bill as a whole, the only parts that seem like an improvement to me are the clause Comfed has mentioned above, and the re-categorization of restricted actions into Class A and Class B, which makes them easier to understand and refer to. Other than that the changes are mostly confusing and unnecessary, like removing the name "North Pacific Army" or rewording the mandatory ministries clauses. And the new oath doesn't seem to change anything except changing "report it to the Security Council" to "report it to the proper authorities", which...the Security Council is clearly the proper authority in this context so why make it more ambiguous than necessary?

Regarding classified operations, I tend to agree with Pallaith that it would be good for such a provision to exist in the law, with explicit references to timeframes so as to reduce ambiguity.

And then there's the big issue with NPA participation in joint ops that perform restricted actions. It seems the consensus in the past was that this should be allowed so long as NPA members don't perform these actions, but I'm wondering if that has changed over time, especially given shifts in the types of operations the NPA now undertakes. Personally, I'm not enamoured with the idea of allowing the NPA to support potentially destructive raids without RA authorization, and even if we allow it, I think there ought to be something that says the NPA can't be leading these operations.

Lastly, the formatting needs to be fixed. As it stands I wouldn't vote for the bill because of the formatting alone even if I completely agree with all its provisions.

 

[Pallaith]

It is a completely reasonable extension to the clause. Why shouldn't the RA be able to dictate the terms of withdrawal if it can already force a withdrawal?

As for the bill as a whole, the only parts that seem like an improvement to me are the clause Comfed has mentioned above, and the re-categorization of restricted actions into Class A and Class B, which makes them easier to understand and refer to. Other than that the changes are mostly confusing and unnecessary, like removing the name "North Pacific Army" or rewording the mandatory ministries clauses. And the new oath doesn't seem to change anything except changing "report it to the Security Council" to "report it to the proper authorities", which...the Security Council is clearly the proper authority in this context so why make it more ambiguous than necessary?

Regarding classified operations, I tend to agree with Pallaith that it would be good for such a provision to exist in the law, with explicit references to timeframes so as to reduce ambiguity.

And then there's the big issue with NPA participation in joint ops that perform restricted actions. It seems the consensus in the past was that this should be allowed so long as NPA members don't perform these actions, but I'm wondering if that has changed over time, especially given shifts in the types of operations the NPA now undertakes. Personally, I'm not enamoured with the idea of allowing the NPA to support potentially destructive raids without RA authorization, and even if we allow it, I think there ought to be something that says the NPA can't be leading these operations.

Lastly, the formatting needs to be fixed. As it stands I wouldn't vote for the bill because of the formatting alone even if I completely agree with all its provisions.

Then please propose alternatives. This is the time to shape this into a solid bill.

 

[Comfed]

The RA already has that power. If an operation violates the RA’s expectations or becomes unacceptable they can pass resolutions and laws to further restrict it. I suppose putting it here makes it much easier and reactive, but it’s hardly an unforeseen option they couldn’t have availed themselves of if they wished. So is your issue that it makes that easier and puts the idea in their head?

Basically. Of course, the RA can make laws or resolutions telling the NPA what to do, because we have civilian control over the military and the rule of law. I just don't support an explicit legal mechanism for the RA to give specific orders to the NPA. It's not really a big sticking point for me though.

 

[Gorundu]

Then please propose alternatives. This is the time to shape this into a solid bill.

The alternatives are to not change any of the sections I didn't mention as an improvement.

 

[Comfed]

I think the bill can be reformatted this way:

1. Section 7.5 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

34. The North Pacific's foreign, internal, and military affairs will each be overseen by at least one Executive Officer other than the Delegate.

2. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

35. The North Pacific will have a military. The military must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations.
36. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all operations undertaken by the military unless they are classifed by the delagate or the Executive Officer in charge of the military.
37. The regional assembly may declassify an operation with a simple majority vote.
38. The following are Class A restricted actions:

• changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
• closing embassies;
• altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
• suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
• closing or opening a regional poll;

39. The following are Class B restricted actions:

• banning or ejecting nations native to a region;
• applying a password to a region;

40. Members of the military holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region in service of the military may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions, but may not carry out any restricted actions themselves without proper exemptions.
42. The Delegate or Executive officer in charge of the military may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all Class A restricted actions. These exemptions must be readily accessible by the Regional Assembly. Class B exemptions are subject to a simple majority confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
43. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that the military perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.
44. The Regional Assembly may, by simple majority vote, require the military to withdraw from any operation, and impose additional practicable requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation.
45. Nations wishing to join the military must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the proper authorities without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

3. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.39 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class A restricted actions.

4. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.40 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class B restricted actions.

Spoiler: BBCode

[quote]1. Section 7.5 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
[QUOTE="Section 7.5: Mandatory Officers"]
34. The North Pacific's foreign, internal, and military affairs will each be overseen by at least one Executive Officer other than the Delegate.
[/QUOTE]
2. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
[QUOTE="Section 7.6: Military Affairs"]
35. The North Pacific will have a military. The military must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations.
36. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all operations undertaken by the military unless they are classifed by the delagate or the Executive Officer in charge of the military.
37. The regional assembly may declassify an operation with a simple majority vote.
38. The following are Class A restricted actions:
[LIST]
[*]changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
[*]closing embassies;
[*]altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
[*]suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
[*]closing or opening a regional poll;
[/LIST]
39. The following are Class B restricted actions:
[LIST]
[*]banning or ejecting nations native to a region;
[*]applying a password to a region;
[/LIST]
40. Members of the military holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region in service of the military may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions, but may not carry out any restricted actions themselves without proper exemptions.
42. The Delegate or Executive officer in charge of the military may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all Class A restricted actions. These exemptions must be readily accessible by the Regional Assembly. Class B exemptions are subject to a simple majority confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
43. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that the military perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.
44. The Regional Assembly may, by simple majority vote, require the military to withdraw from any operation, and impose additional practicable requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation.
45. Nations wishing to join the military must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.
[QUOTE]
By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the proper authorities without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
3. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.39 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class A restricted actions.

4. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.40 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class B restricted actions.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Vivanco]

I think the bill can be reformatted this way:

Spoiler: BBCode

[quote]1. Section 7.5 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
[QUOTE="Section 7.5: Mandatory Officers"]
34. The North Pacific's foreign, internal, and military affairs will each be overseen by at least one Executive Officer other than the Delegate.
[/QUOTE]
2. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
[QUOTE="Section 7.6: Military Affairs"]
35. The North Pacific will have a military. The military must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations.
36. The Regional Assembly must be promptly informed of all operations undertaken by the military unless they are classifed by the delagate or the Executive Officer in charge of the military.
37. The regional assembly may declassify an operation with a simple majority vote.
38. The following are Class A restricted actions:
[LIST]
[*]changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
[*]closing embassies;
[*]altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
[*]suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
[*]closing or opening a regional poll;
[/LIST]
39. The following are Class B restricted actions:
[LIST]
[*]banning or ejecting nations native to a region;
[*]applying a password to a region;
[/LIST]
40. Members of the military holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region in service of the military may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions, but may not carry out any restricted actions themselves without proper exemptions.
42. The Delegate or Executive officer in charge of the military may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all Class A restricted actions. These exemptions must be readily accessible by the Regional Assembly. Class B exemptions are subject to a simple majority confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.
43. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that the military perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.
44. The Regional Assembly may, by simple majority vote, require the military to withdraw from any operation, and impose additional practicable requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation.
45. Nations wishing to join the military must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.
[QUOTE]
By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the proper authorities without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
3. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.39 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class A restricted actions.

4. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.40 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class B restricted actions.
[/QUOTE]

mark-up version please!

 

[Pallaith]

The alternatives are to not change any of the sections I didn't mention as an improvement.

I was thinking more along the lines of, how would you fix the formatting? What did you thin of Comfed's?

I'm not married to the mandatory ministry or military definition bits either, and I don't know that the oath change is really needed, but you seem to want nearly everything stripped from this bill and that's going to be tough. I wish I had an idea of how more people felt about these things because I think 9003 could be accommodating. I agree that the biggest things here are the exception lists and the additional recognition of RA scrutiny, and I absolutely want to see those make it to my metaphorical desk.

 

[Comfed]

mark-up version please!

A mark-up version would not really be useful because it's basically a full replacement of the existing laws iirc

 

[Gorundu]

I was thinking more along the lines of, how would you fix the formatting? What did you thin of Comfed's?

I'm not married to the mandatory ministry or military definition bits either, and I don't know that the oath change is really needed, but you seem to want nearly everything stripped from this bill and that's going to be tough. I wish I had an idea of how more people felt about these things because I think 9003 could be accommodating. I agree that the biggest things here are the exception lists and the additional recognition of RA scrutiny, and I absolutely want to see those make it to my metaphorical desk.

Well I thought formatting should be easy enough. Comfed's seem perfectly fine.

I think the bill as it stands is a bit too unwieldy, with language clean-ups, minor changes, and substantial changes all rolled into one. I would have at least split the part about restricted actions in joint ops into a separate bill since it's the biggest change and a debate in itself.

 

[Pallaith]

Alright, I would like to try my hand at tweaking the wording of the bill. Let me know what you think, especially @9003

1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

37. The North Pacific will have one military, known as The North Pacific Army. It must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations.
38. The Regional Assembly must be informed of all operations undertaken by The North Pacific Army as soon as practicable, unless they are classified by the Delegate or the Executive Officer in charge of the military.
39. The Regional Assembly may declassify an operation by a majority vote.
40. The following are Class A restricted actions:

• changing a region's World Factbook Entry without providing the region with the original content of the World Factbook Entry or a straightforward way to access that content;
• closing embassies;
• altering a region's pinned dispatch list;
• suppressing posts on a Regional Message Board;
• closing or opening a regional poll;

41. The following are Class B restricted actions:

• applying a password to a region;
• banning or ejecting nations native to a region;

42. Members of The North Pacific Army holding a Regional Officer position in a foreign region as part of an operation in that region may not use that position to perform restricted actions, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
43. Members of The North Pacific Army may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restrictions, and may serve as Regional Officers in foreign regions during such joint operations, but may not perform any restricted actions themselves in the joint operation, except where necessary to restore a region to a prior native-controlled state.
44. The Delegate may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all Class A restricted actions. The Regional Assembly must be informed as soon as these exemptions are made. Class B exemptions must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
45. Regions with which The North Pacific is at war are exempt from all restricted actions for the duration of the war. Natives of a region that request that The North Pacific Army perform restricted actions on them, whether independently or as part of a broader agreement, are exempt from those restricted actions.
46. The Regional Assembly may require The North Pacific Army to withdraw from any operation, and impose other requirements to reverse restricted actions it performed on that region during that operation, by majority vote.
47. Nations wishing to join The North Pacific Army must swear the following oath before being enlisted. All military rules that they are pledging to obey must be publicly visible.

By my honor and by my conscience, I will endeavor to honestly and faithfully serve The North Pacific. In peace and in war, I will support and defend The North Pacific and its legal system of government. If I perceive or gain knowledge of activity to overthrow the legal government of the region, I will report it to the Security Council without delay. I promise to act properly and uprightly, to obey the lawful orders of the Delegate and my superiors, to comply with the law and all military rules, and to keep the military secrets trusted in me. Should I be given a position of military leadership, I will endeavor to set a good and encouraging example to my subordinates. When deployed, I will be mindful that my actions reflect on my region, and endeavor to represent The North Pacific with honor and dignity. I swear all this freely and without reservation.

2. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.39 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class A restricted actions.

3. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.40 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all Class B restricted actions.

Right off the bat: I eliminated the change to the mandatory ministries. I feel that outlining what the ministries are meant to be for is important and we lose that for the single condensing this bill proposed. It's a bit non-germane to the topic as well - while that change does affect the military officer, it completely rethinks that section in ways I don't think we dwelled on before. If you want to make that change, add it as a new clause in addition to the others, or add a bit to each that makes it clear the officer must be someone other than the Delegate. But I would advise leaving that change out entirely from this bill.

I put The North Pacific Army back into the legal code. To accomplish what you sought to do, I found it was easier to specify that TNP will have "one military" and then identify what it is. No need to worry about other armies now.

I went with the phrase "as soon as practicable" to describe how the RA must be informed of deployments. I think it works better than "promptly."

I have tried my hand at rewording the clause about allowing our soldiers to participate in joint ops where the other militaries do not abide by our restrictions, so that it is clearer. The goal is to forbid our own soldiers from doing the restricted actions but allow them to participate, even including being ROs, as long as they don't violate the restrictions. I mirrored the language from the previous clause about allowing restricted actions to restore regions to a native-controlled state. I didn't want to create a situation where the rules were even stricter in joint ops, and figured it would be best not to have the contradiction.

Not sure how this flew under the radar, but why is the MoD making exemptions? I removed that.

I changed "readily accessible" to say that the RA must be informed as soon as exemptions are made - the how I leave deliberately ambiguous, as long as they are informed. That can be a public list or one only visible to citizens, as long as the RA knows when the exemptions are made. I slightly reworded the Class B part as well, just for better phrasing. Everywhere the phrase "simple majority vote" was used I replaced it with "majority vote" as this is consistent with the rest of the Legal Code.

I did a slight reword on the section for the RA responding to reversing damage in an operation.

I restored the original oath. I could not see how the changes did what you intended them to do, and in fact the line before the oath about military rules they pledged to obey didn't even make sense because the line about obeying military rules was omitted from your new version of the oath.

I hope these changes are acceptable for you guys, especially 9003, and that they bridge the gap for Gorundu - I'm not seeing why the bill has to essentially be gutted, I think it's dong a lot but what it is doing is good and necessary. Hopefully it is in an acceptable form to earn your support, even if you would have preferred a more piecemeal approach.

 

[QuietDad]

As the longest serving NPA member, I only have two suggestions I would like to see.

41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions, but may not carry out any restricted actions themselves without proper exemptions. I would reword it to 41. Members of the military may participate in joint operations with other militaries that do not abide by these restricted actions. While representing another army they may not f;y the flag of the NPA or TNP or represent TNP in any manner. As someone who has spent over a decade doing this, when another army is leading an op, you follow the rules of the lead army. Always been that way. Period. Only issues is when you do something as a mercenary and say your from TNP doing it.

Secondly, I'd like to further define the Delegate's "Leadership", but the charter may not be the place to codify it. I get it we "report" to the delegate, but until lately, The Delegate may order the NPA to go into a region or leave one, the NEVER dictated the how and when of it. That was always High Command with the approval of the delegate. This current term, a decision was made we couldn't raid, even in training ops and caused a mass exodus of members. The NPA is INPDEPENDANT. As the person who fought to get the NPA away from the old restrictions of having to leave a region the way you found it to the current give them a copy of hat you changed,

 

[Comfed]

Secondly, I'd like to further define the Delegate's "Leadership", but the charter may not be the place to codify it. I get it we "report" to the delegate, but until lately, The Delegate may order the NPA to go into a region or leave one, the NEVER dictated the how and when of it. That was always High Command with the approval of the delegate. This current term, a decision was made we couldn't raid, even in training ops and caused a mass exodus of members. The NPA is INPDEPENDANT. As the person who fought to get the NPA away from the old restrictions of having to leave a region the way you found it to the current give them a copy of hat you changed,

If anything, I think it might be useful to clarify the opposite of what you seem to suggest - that the Delegate is the commander in chief of the NPA. Ultimately, the NPA should be subordinate to the broader foreign policy of the Delegate (it is independent as you say) and it shouldn't be an independent institution from the rest of the government.

 

[9003]

I like the changes Ghost,
the logic behind including the executive officer to be able to give more power to HC. If we trust them to run the NPA we can trust them to make exemptions that can be as simple as flick of the wrist from the anyway, with the same oversight as the WAD has.

 

[Pallaith]

I like the changes Ghost,
the logic behind including the executive officer to be able to give more power to HC. If we trust them to run the NPA we can trust them to make exemptions that can be as simple as flick of the wrist from the anyway, with the same oversight as the WAD has.

I can provide you the code for my proposed version of the bill if you would like to adopt it.

As for the executive officer bit - I appreciate that we want to trust them on exemptions, which is why they should absolutely be involved in that decision, but unilaterally being able to exempt regions separate from the delegate can create a separation or powers issue - and what if the delegate doesn’t agree? Can they exempt and un-exempt regions back and forth while they’re in disagreement? This is something that should be done singularly. The government should speak with one voice.

And QuietDad’s claim about forbidding raids leading to an exodus in the NPA is false. That may be why several people left but it wasn’t new in this term, it’s been happening all year across successive administrations. Remember that On Alignment was announced in January. I also respectfully disagree that the delegate cannot make expectations about types of operations. If they can sign off or refuse specific operations not sure why pre-emptively ruling out certain types of ops is somehow some big different thing.

 

[Gorundu]

I have to say I still prefer the old wording in a few cases. For example, these two clauses are at the start of the current Section 7.6:

37. The North Pacific Army is the military of The North Pacific. The executive officer charged with military affairs will endeavour to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.
38. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region.

The first clause has been reworded in this bill, and I don't see any good reason for it. It specifies the NPA is the military of TNP, so there's not really a loophole that allows another military to be created. And the second part of the clause I think is superior to what's in the bill, which says "[The NPA] must be permitted by law and government policy to undertake both offensive and defensive operations". I think capability is the more important element here, being "permitted" doesn't really do anything since as mentioned above, it's still the Delegate's discretion as to what specific ops are undertaken.

The second clause has been omitted entirely, and while it's pretty vague, I think it's nice to keep as a general guiding principle for the NPA.

The clause about the RA declassifying an operation seems to lack some context, because how is the RA supposed to declasify an operation if they don't know about it? If the Delegate is supposed to inform the RA that a classified operation is taking place (without providing further details), then that needs to be said somewhere.

There's also some more nitipicky changes I would like to suggest. In clause 43 I think "other militaries that do not abide by these restrictions" should be changed to "other militaries that perform restricted actions", just to keep everything consistent with the "restricted actions" phrase across the section. Similarly, for clause 44 I would reword it this way:

44. The Delegate may specifically or categorically exempt regions from some or all restricted actions. The Regional Assembly must be informed as soon as these exemptions are made. Exemptions to Class B restricted actions must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

I still would like to see more discussion on the issue of allowing the NPA to participate in joint ops performing restricted actions, preferably in a separate bill. The proposal that QuietDad offered, for example, is an interesting alternative. Overall we haven't seem much discussion for a bill that seems to me to be quite significant. I don't know if that's because of a lack of interest, or because it was moving so slowly and without much progress previously that people didn't actually think it was going to get to a vote (which was why I didn't jump in until the formal debate stage).

 

[Pallaith]

@9003 I actually agree with Gorundu's proposed re-wording of clauses 43 and 44, so I would suggest implementing them.

@Gorundu I appreciate your point about the original language, but this wording should definitively shut down any notion of the multi-army loophole. I take your point about permitting not doing much, though it does stop one type of op from being ruled out definitively, and I can see how some would feel better with that. As for the missing second clause, well, I believe the other clauses and the oath emphasize expectations for conduct, I don't actually think that idea is truly missing.

If the RA inquires about a operation or why an operation was not reported to them, the Delegate responding that it is classified is how they would find out. I don't know what you're expecting, for the Delegate to be forced to say "I'm doing a classified op right now FYI?" when no one is expecting it?

I'm not sure what larger discussion you're looking for about participating in joint ops where restricted actions are done. The way I see it, it's either we think we should have absolutely nothing to do with such ops, or we think we should be able to. Either way our soldiers still have to follow the restrictions, which has always been the case. This clause exists because the Court decided that we no longer could do precisely what we always did. This returns us to a prior state, and while I am sure there are some who never liked that state and were happy with the Court decision, it's not like we're charting new ground and need to think it through.

 

[Gorundu]

If the RA inquires about a operation or why an operation was not reported to them, the Delegate responding that it is classified is how they would find out. I don't know what you're expecting, for the Delegate to be forced to say "I'm doing a classified op right now FYI?" when no one is expecting it?

I was just confused how the RA would declassify operations they don't know about. But okay, fair enough. I do note the bill removes the requirement for the RA to be "promptly informed of any classified operation, as well as the reasons for the classification, as soon as possible following deployment", and instead leaves it to a case-by-case basis.

I'm not sure what larger discussion you're looking for about participating in joint ops where restricted actions are done. The way I see it, it's either we think we should have absolutely nothing to do with such ops, or we think we should be able to. Either way our soldiers still have to follow the restrictions, which has always been the case. This clause exists because the Court decided that we no longer could do precisely what we always did. This returns us to a prior state, and while I am sure there are some who never liked that state and were happy with the Court decision, it's not like we're charting new ground and need to think it through.

I would have to disagree and say there are various degrees of middle grounds between zero participation in these joint ops and free rein to participate in any joint ops, whether it's only Class A restricted actions or requiring some kind of subsequent RA authorization. And while the change does return us to a prior state, the state of the NPA then is very different from the state of the NPA now, and there seemed to have been no hurry to rewrite the law given the ruling was almost two years ago.

 

[Pallaith]

I was just confused how the RA would declassify operations they don't know about. But okay, fair enough. I do note the bill removes the requirement for the RA to be "promptly informed of any classified operation, as well as the reasons for the classification, as soon as possible following deployment", and instead leaves it to a case-by-case basis.

I would have to disagree and say there are various degrees of middle grounds between zero participation in these joint ops and free rein to participate in any joint ops, whether it's only Class A restricted actions or requiring some kind of subsequent RA authorization. And while the change does return us to a prior state, the state of the NPA then is very different from the state of the NPA now, and there seemed to have been no hurry to rewrite the law given the ruling was almost two years ago.

Fair enough as it concerns the old prompt wording. I don’t think this really happens that often to begin with so case by case certainly seems fine, but an operation that is classified will eventually become known as is the nature of these operations. Classification is meant to keep the operation secret as long as possible so that it can take place. Considering how immediate these things can get once soldiers touch base, I would assert the operations kind of unclassify themselves - I’m just having trouble imagining how thorny this actually is. It was important for me to make sure the RA had a check on this in case a Delegate was being dodgy and manipulating classification, but it’s a hypothetical situation.

While there may be degrees to how open you are to allowing participation in joint ops that involve restricted actions, that doesn’t change my underlining point - we had no limits to this before and we have simply sought a return to that state. Your claim that we haven’t been in a hurry to rewrite the law is also false. The fact is, a fix was proposed and passed the RA quite some time ago, the problem is, not everyone agreed it was actually a fix, and some, including myself, believe that if the Court heard the same case again with that new law, they would rule exactly the same as before because that fix was insufficient. This clause in this bill would completely fix that issue. As for the state of the NPA being different now compared to then - yes, and? I don’t see how that’s relevant unless you’re insinuating that we would prefer not to engage in destructive actions compared to the past - let me assure you, for the right targets, our appetite for destruction is very much the same as it was before.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

The Formal Debate period has come to an end. No further changes to the bill are permitted. I'm scheduling a vote to begin at (time=1672785000).

Edit: Now scheduled for (time=1672693200)

 

[Pallaith]

The Formal Debate period has come to an end. No further changes to the bill are permitted. I'm scheduling a vote to begin at (time=1672785000).

Would the Speaker consider a sooner date given that the voting could be over prior to voting in the General Election? I understand if that works better for the Speaker’s schedule, but if it can be arranged to run to completion prior to votes being cast in the election, I figure we might as well shoot for that.

Given the treaty bill is also practically ready to be scheduled (about a day later), I would have a similar thought regarding that bill. And I know that the RA can handle two different things simultaneously, but I figured that would be better. Any thoughts on that?