HOUSE BILL: Korean Crisis Investigation Act (Debating)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: Oakvale
House Designation: HB 1188

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to commence with debate and the members have a subsequent 48 hours to post their initial comments, questions or concerns.

[Oakvale]

Mr. Speaker,

The Goldwater administration's disastrous decision to launch a first strike on North Korean and the ensuing geopolitical chaos was perhaps the defining event of the last several years. It caused untold damage to our international reputation that the current administration and the State Department are still working to repair.

To take the right lessons from this fiasco, we need a full and comprehensive investigation into what happened, how, when, why, and how, most importantly we can avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

While I am, of course, open to changes in the language of the bill I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the establishment of such an investigation.

[Pericles]

As a concerned citizen this looks good though I personally think a special counsel with no partisan bias involved anywhere and the ability to file criminal charges would be the best option. And probably best not to involve the AG too much in the process.

[Oakvale]

As a concerned citizen this looks good though I personally think a special counsel with no partisan bias involved anywhere and the ability to file criminal charges would be the best option. And probably best not to involve the AG too much in the process.

I'm more than open to being persuaded on removing myself from the process through amendments, sure.

[Pericles]

As a concerned citizen this looks good though I personally think a special counsel with no partisan bias involved anywhere and the ability to file criminal charges would be the best option. And probably best not to involve the AG too much in the process.

I'm more than open to being persuaded on removing myself from the process through amendments, sure.

I think as good way to do it would be to insert in the legislation that you can review it for security concerns but are expressly forbidden from changing or obstructing the substance of it. You can have a role in making sure it doesn't endanger national security but you have to allow the investigation and report to otherwise go ahead as is.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Can the sponsor please explain ever exact crimes he thinks may have been committed by Goldwater and or other cabinet members at the time. While I certainly hope we can reform the process of declaring war to make sure these decisions are Government wide decisions; I am not sure how productive this investigation would be. After all we kind of know what happened already and rehashing exact details just doesn’t seem that productive.

[Pericles]

Another positive of having an investigation is that then we can find out the truth and not just have to rely on what politicians say. What if Goldwater did consult with another cabinet official but they're now saying that they weren't consulted? It's a hypothetical, but we won't know unless the truth is exposed. And so on this issue we absolutely need an investigation. It's not partisanship, it's just common sense.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Another positive of having an investigation is that then we can find out the truth and not just have to rely on what politicians say. What if Goldwater did consult with another cabinet official but they're now saying that they weren't consulted? It's a hypothetical, but we won't know unless the truth is exposed. And so on this issue we absolutely need an investigation. It's not partisanship, it's just common sense.

Their are some small discrepancies in what actually happened then what some of claimed has happened. However I am not sure how in the end these type of details matter much right now. Not trying to protect anyone but their just isn’t that much to investigate. Anyway if this passes and I am summoned to testify I will certainly do so.

[Pericles]

Another positive of having an investigation is that then we can find out the truth and not just have to rely on what politicians say. What if Goldwater did consult with another cabinet official but they're now saying that they weren't consulted? It's a hypothetical, but we won't know unless the truth is exposed. And so on this issue we absolutely need an investigation. It's not partisanship, it's just common sense.

Their are some small discrepancies in what actually happened then what some of claimed has happened. However I am not sure how in the end these type of details matter much right now. Not trying to protect anyone but their just isn’t that much to investigate. Anyway if this passes and I am summoned to testify I will certainly do so.

I think it's better that Atlasians can have full trust in their government and leaders and so there should be accountability and honesty.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As a concerned citizen this looks good though I personally think a special counsel with no partisan bias involved anywhere and the ability to file criminal charges would be the best option. And probably best not to involve the AG too much in the process.

Though it does bring to question the nature of the AG and its long term structure as well. Assuming partisanship is a concern, then we should look into making changes to the AG since this is not the only situation where such a problem could arise.

[Oakvale]

Can the sponsor please explain ever exact crimes he thinks may have been committed by Goldwater and or other cabinet members at the time. While I certainly hope we can reform the process of declaring war to make sure these decisions are Government wide decisions; I am not sure how productive this investigation would be. After all we kind of know what happened already and rehashing exact details just doesn’t seem that productive.

I don't know if there were any. That's not my call to make - should the Committee come to that conclusion I would abide by their recommendation.

It's not at all clear to me that we do know exactly what happened, and I agree with the Senator from Fremont on the necessity of such an investigation.

The Speaker makes a compelling point on the potential for conflicts in the Attorney General role. I may look into a text that could address some of those concerns.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can the sponsor please explain ever exact crimes he thinks may have been committed by Goldwater and or other cabinet members at the time. While I certainly hope we can reform the process of declaring war to make sure these decisions are Government wide decisions; I am not sure how productive this investigation would be. After all we kind of know what happened already and rehashing exact details just doesn’t seem that productive.

I don't know if there were any. That's not my call to make - should the Committee come to that conclusion I would abide by their recommendation.

It's not at all clear to me that we do know exactly what happened, and I agree with the Senator from Fremont on the necessity of such an investigation.

The Speaker makes a compelling point on the potential for conflicts in the Attorney General role. I may look into a text that could address some of those concerns.

It is an issue that we need to look at and beyond just dual office holding aspect, which was the focus of our October platform but got pushed off because of the holidays. Such could be a decent jumping off point though.

Anyway, are we in a position to move forward with this bill or is there more changes needed?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

If we have no objections in 24 hours I will put this bill up for a final vote.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

A 72 hour final vote is now open on this bill can representative please vote aye, nay or abstain on this bill.

[wxtransit]

Abstain, as while it is a good bill, I would have liked to see an amendment to address the conflicts with the Attorney General.

[RFayette]

Aye

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Abstain
as someone that is likely to be a central figure in testifying in front of the committee (as the GM at the time) I feel it's best if I abstain on this vote.   

[Leinad]

Nay

It seems like we know what happened already (neocon saw a shiny red button ), and I really don't see this committee getting anything done (and if it actually is an active committee it would probably be at the expense of actual policy-related things).

Part of me thinks this might be fun, so it's a light nay, but it's a nay nonetheless (it was either that or abstain, and I think a supermajority of abstentions reflects poorly on the chamber's decisiveness ).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain


After the war started, I was involved in an advisory capacity to President Fhtagn as a member of her NSC.

[wxtransit]

I'll change my vote to Nay.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I will give 24 hours for representatives to change or add their vote; this bill is currently failing.

[wxtransit]

Pass the bill!

Then become a representative!

[Oakvale]

AYE.

I must apologise profusely for my absence over this last week. In the imaginary alternate reality where I am not a Congressman but just an average schlub with a job etc. I had to make strenuous efforts to ensure I kept said job. I trust all members understand.

In regards to Leinad's objection - it may well be that, at the end of this process, we already know what happened, but that's a poor reason to dismiss the idea out of hand. And the fact that we need to put systems in place to ensure such a fiasco is never repeat should be so apparent as to be banal - clearly an official, thoughtful report on the matter would guide us making these decisions.

He also touches upon a key point - it might be fun. Well, yes! I am confident that this Committee would have significant potential for increasing activity through the always entertaining promotion of intrigue and partisan scuffling. I am additionally entirely unpersuaded that an active committee would distract in any meaningful way from policymaking - it takes, what, a few minutes a day for members to give their thoughts on a piece of legislation? Let's be realistic here.

I say only this to my colleagues - Atlasia needs to take a long, hard look at its past and that includes the grisly, unpleasant events that happened with Korea and plunged us, and the wider world, into chaos. If we ignore this truth, and attempt to wash our hands of the task of confronting that ugly reality and learning from it, we will, mark my words live to regret it. Perhaps not today, and perhaps not any time soon, but we will regret it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Speaking of ignoring truths, its ignoring truth to expect to find something we all know isn't there, just because maybe just maybe it could maybe be there.