Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Passed)

[bore]

For the record, my own region of the northeast already has this.

[bore]

I guess this is similar to the public means public bill, where the federal government is considering implementing something that has already been implemented and paid for in a region.

The problem I see is giving the money to the northeast is redundant seeing as this is already paid for, but not giving it seems to send the message that regions shouldn't bother innovating if they want to save money.

[bore]

The only thing I can think of is far more stringent separation of powers.

[bore]

Then what is to be done with the money the northeast loacl police forces have been given to spend on military surplus?

[bore]

Well I'd favour scrapping the military selling kit to the police even if it made a profit, but that will affect what we do with the rest of the bill.

[bore]

I appreciate this debate about police and why they exist but lets not forget the funding issue.

First is scraping surplus and using the money to pay for this feasible? Only one has responded so far on this matter.

Second, what about the NE, considering the Public Means Public Act, how do we go about distributing the money as this is a similar instance of one region already doing this?

I see no reason to waste additional funds on cameras Northeast PD's don't need. I say we should just include a clause stipulating that any department already equipped with cameras won't receive new funds.

That's not the point.

The fact that the northeast is paying out of its own pocket for something that the federal government pays for in every other region is unfair on the northeast. Just like it's unfair for the IDS and NE to pay to support their own homeless while other regions have it paid for them.

However, short of a restructuring of what constitutes regional and what constitutes federal areas of power I don't see what can be done. Does anyone else have any ideas?

[bore]

Yeah, that seems the fairest way to do things.

[bore]

Inroduucing an amendment:

Slot: 4 (General, PPT Administered)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Yeah we're going to have deal with the funding now.

How much do we want to/ can we afford to sink into this?

[bore]

Could we sell the surplus to allies*?




*And I don't mean allies like saudi arabia, but allies like the UK or France

[bore]

I would support that move, but scrapping is probably safer, which is why I didn't suggest selling before.

Maybe a mix of the two. Sell what we can to Britain, France, Canada etc, scrap what we cannot.

I'd be good with that.

[bore]

Introducing an amendment:

Slot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Something like this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Ah, I get you now.

I think what's being proposed is basically a portable CCTV system, and, at least in the UK we have laws about disposing of that footage for privacy reasons.

I think ultimately being recorded is an invasion of your privacy, which is only OK if it protects some other right (the right of not being harassed by police officers, for instance). So unless we actually need the footage it shouldn't be looked at as that would be breaking people's right to privacy and I think after 6 months we know whether a crime has occurred.

[bore]

Nothing in the bill at the moment precludes checks to ensure footage isn't looked at, in the same way that nothing in the environment bill outlawing trade in endangered species stops us from searching out offenders. In fact that there is a prohibition implies that checks would be put in place.

If you really think it's necessary (and it's certainly not harmful) then I suppose there could be an amendment, but I'm not sure it is necessary.

[bore]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

[bore]

That amendment could be read as allowing us to sell it to anyone, not just NATO.

[bore]

Nay

[bore]

This has enough votes to fail, senators have 24 hours to change their vote.

[bore]

The amendment has failed

[bore]

With no objection a final vote is now open on this bill. Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

[bore]

Aye

[bore]

This has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[bore]

By a vote of 8-1 this has passed the senate and is sent to the president for executive action

Aye: Bore, TNF, Deus, Cranberry, JCL, POlnut, Yankee, Cynic

Nay: Windjammer

Not Voting: Bacon King