IDS 2: The Imperial Security Act (Failed)

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Jbrase Dereich

[CatoMinor]

This bill is not about killing democracy, or targeting groups we happen to not like, this is about dealing with a organization that has gone past simply trolling and into acts of extremism that have brought chaos to a region. They claim the para-military group that sprung up in the aftermath is not officially part of the NM-AM, but there are clear ties as it's founder is part of the NM-AM.

The fact of the matter is that these people used destructive means to further their views. I am not insane to call that terrorism.

[Velasco]

Is this bill serious? I've just read what our NMAM Legislator wrote addressing your points and I have little to add.

They claim the para-military group that sprung up in the aftermath is not officially part of the NM-AM, but there are clear ties as it's founder is part of the NM-AM.

If I start now a thread stating that the Groucho-Marxist Liberation Front (which I will have created to the effect) stands in support of the helpless Pacific citizens, unarmed before the South's imperialistic aggression, and you pretend to take it seriously and banning another political organization, establishing a link between her and my Front (of which I'm the founder and the only member), I'll argue that you have a feverish imagination.

This bill is not about killing democracy, or targeting groups we happen to not like

Really? If this Legislature passes this bill, what does happen with the representative of the 'terrorists' whom sits down here? Can a regional legislature ban a party that is legal, according to the Federal laws? Do we have the competence? How can we discuss this bill here?

I think we have discussed events in the Pacific until exhaustion. That question is on the hands of the Supreme Court.

[CatoMinor]

Well first off, if you create anything that is Groucho-Marxist, I will be among the first members.

And because clearly everyone has a memory issue.

"We, the People of the unorganized territories, found this organization for our mutual protection and self-defense. The People's Front will serve as an army of defense and liberatio....we will not hesitate to use force...."

[Velasco]

My Groucho-Marxist Front would stand as a self-defense army too. Translated into facts, this would mean nothing.

[Hash]

I know that nobody around here listens to me, so this is all quite useless, but I feel obliged to post something about this.

Completely ignoring the fact that this could justifiably be interpreted as a means to remove a legislator (in this instance, me) from office he was fairly and democratically elected to, persecuting people of a certain political persuasion and certain (admittedly radical for the likings of the ruling caste) ideology and the fact that this is almost certainly blatantly unconstitutional; this bill remains a grave affront to democracy and Atlasian/Southeastern values such as freedom of speech, universal suffrage, the right of any one citizen to hold elective office and other fundamental civil liberties.

The issue at stake here is no longer whether or not Rimjob and the NMAM's activities in the Pacific were right, justified, legitimate, legal or whatever. I happen to agree with them, and others - perfectly legitimately - agree to disagree (often quite strongly) with them. The issue at stake, instead, is democracy itself. If we are to be a free and democratic region, nation; then we must not start branding those who hold opposing viewpoints as "terrorists". Not only is the use of such a serious term potentially insulting to those branded as such, it is also an extremely slippery slope. The advocates of this legislation have twisted and bended the definition of "terrorism". Of course, there is no unique definition of terrorism, but I think we can all agree that the word "terrorism" implies some form of extralegal violence or force. The NMAM has never once used force (or threatened to use force) or violence to achieve its aims. The Mustafinist-Komovist Revolution must be carried out through legal, democratic and non-violent means; the Movement strongly rejects the use of violence and terrorism to achieve our goals. We are committed to democracy, to real democracy, and we respect (even if strongly disagreeing at times) the right of every citizen - every citizen - to hold an opinion, and we would never restrict the right to vote, hold office or speak publicly on partisan, ideological or other grounds. Never. If the Movement ever did so, then I would dissociate myself from the Movement and strongly condemn such moves.

Even if the Final Constitution has been deemed unconstitutional by a court, it was not imposed by violent means on the people. Besides, unless we really live in lalaland, violence itself is impossible in Atlasia.

However, the supporters of this bill have twisted their definitions of "terrorism" so far to justify this bill and its language. Apparently, 'trolling' constitutes terrorism. Apparently, holding 'doubts' about a group/person's desire to commit 'terrorist' acts 'if' they had the means to do so constitutes terrorism. Being 'deceptive', 'fraudulent' and 'unconstitutional' is enough to be a terrorist. On this basis, I could think of tons of perfectly democratic political parties which I could 'justifiably' call terrorists just because I subjectively think that what they're doing is, in my eyes, 'deceptive' and 'fraudulent'. Who defines trolling? Who defines deceptive and fraudulent? Trolling, deception and fraud in the eyes of one person are not trolling, deception and fraud in the eyes of other persons. Elected officials, who by definition hold subjective opinions and political views, should not be in the business of setting in stone definitions for such vague terms.

Being an 'extremist' is equated to being a terrorist. Once again, who defines 'extremism'? The opponents of NMAM may call us extremists, that is a subjective opinion they are entitled to, but that is not an objective fact. NMAM and our sympathizers would not, I believe, call us 'extremists', but they could - again, justifiably - call other people 'extremists'. Once more, one person's extremist is not necessarily everybody's extremist.

The advocates of this legislation are, frankly, grasping at straws here. They're defining terrorism in ridiculous ways which few reasonable people, I believe, would share. They're trying to ban a political party on those flimsy grounds. As for the issue of the 'People's Front', I reiterate that NMAM never had any official ties to that group. It was founded by an NMAM member. Good. So what? Does that make us all terrorists, even NMAM members like me who never associated with the group or condoned its threats of force? I'm sure we could think of plenty of less than savoury groups founded by past or present members of perfectly legal and non-terroristic political parties. If you want to persecute somebody for 'terrorism', then why not persecute the only person/organization who threatened force? A member of a party does not represent the views of the party. This is ridiculous, and I hope neutral observers - even less than neutral observers - realize how ridiculous this all is.

We are a nation which prides itself on civil liberties, and have enshrined several fundamental civil and human rights in our regional and national constitutions. Including the freedom of speech. We are a nation which has never once, as I recall, restricted the right to vote or hold office on the basis of one's partisan or ideological affiliation. A fundamental part of democracy, in my eyes, is plurality - respecting everybody's right to hold an opinion, freedom of speech and assembly, universal suffrage and any one citizen's chance to hold elective office if he/she so chooses. If we oppose certain political viewpoints, then the voters will be the final arbiters of that. If they dislike us or any party, they may throw us out of office through democratic means (election, recall etc). Even if they do throw us or anybody else out of office, then we and anybody else will still have the possibility of running for and holding office, of expressing their views in public without fear of persecution (and being branded 'terrorists'). That is democracy.

We must resist the temptations to sink into an exclusionary, anti-democratic mind-frame of 'us vs. them', and resist the urge to respond to political opposition with anti-democratic McCarthyist means. If we do take this dangerous road, then Atlasia, for the first time in its history, would have taken the extremely dangerous precedent of excluding certain citizens from the right to democratically participate on the basis of their ideology and partisan affiliation. Who will be next? This is not an issue which should be taken lightly, because democracy and fundamental civil liberties are at stake.


For reference's sake, the FBI and the US government's definition of terrorism is as follows:
Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

I hope my fellow legislators keep this definition in mind.

[CatoMinor]

Translated into facts, this would mean nothing.

That depends. In the past when people like Al would post threads on revolution and what not, no one took them seriously because it was just trolling. And then a region was destroyed... They have clearly crossed a line.

Its all well and good that the feds put an end to their nonsense, but whats to stop them from doing it again? All they need to is take advantage of a lull in activity again, and under the guise of "democracy" take down another region.

[Velasco]

Translated into facts, this would mean nothing.

That depends. In the past when people like Al would post threads on revolution and what not, no one took them seriously because it was just trolling. And then a region was destroyed... They have clearly crossed a line.

They didn't cross your line by putting bombs in bus stations, nor coerced Pacific's citizens in the prosecution of their goals. Do you disagree with their methods? You are in your right to protest as vigorously as you can. However, establishing a comparison between actions realized by pacific means (even if they are of questionable legality) with terrorism is slander. I suspect that your bill might be unconstitutional, because I doubt this House has the legal authority to legislate on parties and, in addition, it is true that it resembles McCarthy. Must we declare the Season of the Witch-Hunt open?

[Hash]

Let's also point out in this interesting discussion of paramilitaries that the IDS is maintaining a blatantly unconstitutional paramilitary force.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Hash has put it better than I ever could, unaccustomed as I am to public speaking. I'd just like to add that if this bill is made law, I will resign my seat and become some sort of revolutionary.

[CatoMinor]

After some consideration, I am willing to amend the bill. What this amended bill will do is provide a clear definition for what terrorism is for IDS purposes. We must remember that Atlasia is not RL, and as such certain things such as violance are impossible. But that being said, actions can still be taken that do much harm to Atlasia, it's institutions, and it's citizens in the name of furthering the political objectives of some, which include no physical force or violence.

Under the amended bill the NM-AM will be safe by ex-post facto protections. Also they or any other group who try something like Rim Job again will fall at the mercy of the IDS Judicial System, not just one statute singling them out. This is more than a reasonable compromise in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Define "unplayable". After all, this is a game, and we make the rules. Who's to say what's unplayable?

[CatoMinor]

Define "unplayable". After all, this is a game, and we make the rules. Who's to say what's unplayable?

Every playable position in the region was abolished and they wrote the law in a way that it was impossible for the citizens to get them back. Not exactly democratic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Define "unplayable". After all, this is a game, and we make the rules. Who's to say what's unplayable?

Every playable position in the region was abolished and they wrote the law in a way that it was impossible for the citizens to get them back. Not exactly democratic.

You don't know what democracy is, do you? The Council passed that constitution, and the Council was elected by the people. That's democracy.

[CatoMinor]

Define "unplayable". After all, this is a game, and we make the rules. Who's to say what's unplayable?

Every playable position in the region was abolished and they wrote the law in a way that it was impossible for the citizens to get them back. Not exactly democratic.

You don't know what democracy is, do you? The Council passed that constitution, and the Council was elected by the people. That's democracy.

So you are saying that 3 people, because they are elected, can screw over everyone in the region? Thats hardly democratic. What you had a small number of people taking advantage of a lull in activity.

[CatoMinor]

Because I do not feel like retyping this for a debate that has spread into, what 4 threads now? I 'll just repost this here. Also, since no one has raised issues with my amendment I ask that Speaker Dereich edit the op to reflect the new bill.

Jbrase didn't define a "destructive act". I'm simply asking where he draws the line.

Where exactly the line is can be up for debate, but do you seriously see nothing destructive in a game where an entire region's playable positions are done away (not by a vote of the region, but by a few who took advantage of low activity, so spare me the "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!11!!" bull) and made it so they had no way of undoing it short of Federal intervention? I consider that destructive as far as the game is concerned, I know, I am weird like that.

What you and others are forgetting  are the in-game ramifications of their actions. To abolish all regional playable positions AND (and that is a big and) leave no legal path to retrieve them by the citizens is destructive to the game. These destructive acts being done to further their political goals is terrorism as far as fantasyland is concerned.

[Zanas]

Destroying a government might be the most democratic thing there is, really. At least in some opinions. That are legal. And free.

So, cut the shit, and let's vote this bill down.

[CatoMinor]

Destroying a government might be the most democratic thing there is, really. At least in some opinions. That are legal. And free.

So, cut the shit, and let's vote this bill down.

Please explain to me how this was democratic at all, and do not leave out the explanation of locking out citizens from the ability to change it. I know it was voted on by a council taking advantage of people being lazy and inactive, but explain to me where the Democracy is in preventing the people to choose for themselves if they want to re-establish their regional government. True democracy would have been an open debate where everyone knew exactly what they were in for, and then voted for or against the constitution.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Destroying a government might be the most democratic thing there is, really. At least in some opinions. That are legal. And free.

So, cut the shit, and let's vote this bill down.

Please explain to me how this was democratic at all, and do not leave out the explanation of locking out citizens from the ability to change it. I know it was voted on by a council taking advantage of people being lazy and inactive, but explain to me where the Democracy is in preventing the people to choose for themselves if they want to re-establish their regional government. True democracy would have been an open debate where everyone knew exactly what they were in for, and then voted for or against the constitution.

So what are your thoughts on zombie voters?

[Dereich]

I'm shocked that y'all are defending 4th constitution by calling it democratic; the logic seems to be that once elected legislators have the right to do anything, even things that voters had no reasonable expectation to expect. Would you be just as fine if, for example, a Federalist legislature somewhere declared themselves legislators for life and didn't offer a chance for voter referendums on the matter?

As for the revised bill; I very much agree with having a regional definition of terrorism and yours is as good as any other, but I feel like its too tailored to the current situation. What happened in the Pacific couldn't happen in any other region, certainly not in the same way. Your very very narrow definition in part 1b couldn't ever actually be used in the IDS.

And Hashemite, if you and the rest of NM-AM disagree with the use of violence to advance your causes, would you denounce your member who WAS advocating violent revolution?

[Zanas]

I'll grant it to y'all that the ad vitam æternam part of the Final Constitution was a bridge too far. I would have supported it without a single reserve had it not been for that part.

[Хahar 🤔]

That portion of the constitution was functionally meaningless; given that the region no longer existed, it stood to reason that it would no longer have a Constitution, and the creation of such a Constitution would necessitate the creation of a new region, which would require an amendment to the federal constitution.

[CatoMinor]

That portion of the constitution was functionally meaningless; given that the region no longer existed, it stood to reason that it would no longer have a Constitution, and the creation of such a Constitution would necessitate the creation of a new region, which would require an amendment to the federal constitution.

But you didn't abolish the region, you simply abolished The Pacific. The space the feds recognize as a region was still there, so were the people. All that you had done away with was the governing entities within the region.


And Dereich, if you have issue with the wording there, feel free to put forward an amendment.

[Dereich]

I'll assume sponsorship of this bill. I'll let it stay open a little longer in case any new legislators that may be elected want to discuss it, but this has been mostly debated to death over several boards and on IRC; it'll go to a vote soon.

[Dereich]

Seeing no new debate I'll bring this forward to a vote. Legislators have either 48 hours or until all have responded to vote.

[] Aye
[] Nay
[] Abstain