[DRAFT] Free and Speedy Troops Act

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
-
One concern that keeps rearing its ugly head whenever we make an effort to boost participation and engagement with our military, or join in more joint operations, is the difficulty in mobilizing and reckoning with our existing law on military actions. Just this week we’ve seen this frustration build up and lead to an attempt to reform our military law, yet again.

I don’t propose to have the end all fix here, but I think I can maintain what we have established while also dramatically increasing flexibility for NPA deployments. Behold:

Free and Speedy Troops Act:
1. Section 7.6 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
Section 7.6: The North Pacific Army:
44. The North Pacific Army is the military of The North Pacific. The Executive Officer charged with military affairs will endeavor to maintain an active and well trained military, capable of executing both offensive and defensive operations.
45. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region.
46. 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.
47. The Regional Assembly may declassify an operation by a majority vote.
48. 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;
49. The following are Class B restricted actions:
  • applying a password to a region;
  • banning or ejecting nations native to a region;
50. 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.
51. Members of The North Pacific Army may participate in joint operations with other militaries that perform restricted actions, 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.
52. 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.
50. The Delegate or the Executive Officer charged with military affairs shall notify the Regional Assembly of any operation in which a member of the North Pacific Army or any operational partners undertake any restricted action at least 12 hours before the operation is scheduled to begin, unless the Delegate or the Executive Officer charged with military affairs classifies the operation.
51. If notified of an operation in which a member of the North Pacific Army or any operational partners undertake any Class B restricted actions, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the use of such restricted actions and will hold a majority vote on whether to permit the use of those actions. The vote must begin two days after the Regional Assembly is notified of the operation.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
2. Any regions exempted from clause 7.6.52 of the Legal Code prior to the passing of this Act will be considered exempt from all restricted actions.
Click to expand...

Without changing our restricted actions, we can implement a system where we have immediate flexibility to act as needed, and depending on the nature of the operation, the RA will automatically be pulled into a vote on whether to permit the most destructive of methods for the op in question. And with the Court’s most recent ruling confirming joint ops are not inherently out of the question, we do not need extra clauses affirming the right to hold such ops. This also meets the acting delegate’s goal of simplifying existing law and policy wherever possible, which is of course a nice bonus. No more lists of exempted regions and having to clean them up periodically - just an up or down on a destructive op, and a heads up before a slightly less destructive op occurs.

I’m sure some of you will think of things I have not, so please let me know what you think.
 
This bill, as written, allows the Regional Assembly to hold the NPA accountable while allowing our military to be more flexible in the actions that they take, which would boost morale among our existing troops and make the idea of joining more enticing. I support this.
 
I do not like the requirement of notifying the RA for any class A prior to the operation. That would create another unnecessary burden that doesn’t already exist now and would make planning operations more of a challenge. Additionally, sometimes operations are planned between updates and makes meeting this requirement impossible. Regardless, makes snap operations more difficult and planning tags much more of a challenge. Even if it’s classified that just seems arbitrary to me. I cannot support this in its current form.
 
Cosmic:
I do not like the requirement of notifying the RA for any class A prior to the operation. That would create another unnecessary burden that doesn’t already exist now and would make planning operations more of a challenge. Additionally, sometimes operations are planned between updates and makes meeting this requirement impossible. Regardless, makes snap operations more difficult and planning tags much more of a challenge. Even if it’s classified that just seems arbitrary to me. I cannot support this in its current form.
Click to expand...
I mean the reality is that every class A exemption historically has already been made public, you can find the list of them here. And this wouldn't affect tag raids at all because our current tag raiding protocol is specifically set up not to include any restricted actions.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic:
I do not like the requirement of notifying the RA for any class A prior to the operation. That would create another unnecessary burden that doesn’t already exist now and would make planning operations more of a challenge. Additionally, sometimes operations are planned between updates and makes meeting this requirement impossible. Regardless, makes snap operations more difficult and planning tags much more of a challenge. Even if it’s classified that just seems arbitrary to me. I cannot support this in its current form.
Click to expand...

One of the most consistent criticisms of the current system I have heard is that the RA does not appreciate being made aware of this stuff at the last minute, particularly when they needed to vote on Class B exemptions. The 12-hour window was intended to respond to this frequent issue, and considering the NPA would now be able to act first and then have the vote, as opposed to how it works now, I figured that giving them that time was essential. I do see the problem about last minute or impromptu ops. We have two options here: we classify those near-term ops, or we create an exception for certain scenarios where the ops are planned last minute. Given that Class A were always just a inform thing and didn't require other action, and given that in the new bill Class B ops require a mandatory debate and then vote, perhaps it is not as crucial we get that 12 hour window. I am open to taking it out, or shortening it to say 2 hours or something, but I am open for suggestions on how to balance this.

Comfed:
I mean the reality is that every class A exemption historically has already been made public, you can find the list of them here. And this wouldn't affect tag raids at all because our current tag raiding protocol is specifically set up not to include any restricted actions.
Click to expand...

Comfed is correct - we always informed the RA of Class A exemptions, typically announced right before an op launched. Right before is not the same as 12 hours, I recognize. But with this law change, we would not actually need to maintain such lists anymore - informing the RA the op involves Class A is all we would need to do.

Lord Dominator:
I would note that the new clause 50 looks to entirely replace 46 in all relevant matters
Click to expand...

Clause 46 is the classic mandate for reporting ops. The only difference between Clause 46 and Clause 50 in this bill is the timing of the report - Clause 50 names scenarios where the op must be reported well ahead of time, whereas Clause 46 gives a lot more flexibility on when the reports can be made. Clause 50 is only for ops that involve restricted actions, it would not apply to our vanilla ops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top