Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 01:20:25
Server time: 10:39:34, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Military Intelligence Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Grand Republican Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: February 2101

Description[?]:

The Grand Republican Party, believing that the current status of the Rutanian Intelligence Agency is far too limited in scope and abilities, and is far too tied down in legislature and political sensibilities, suggests the creation of a new agency to support and co-exist with the existing RIA.

This new agency would be known as the Military Intelligence Agency, using seperate resources from the exiting RIA resources, and utilising the powers of the Rutanian military itself. The MIA would act only abroad, internal matters being dealt with by the RIA , and would be used to strike enemy countries pre-emptively in the case of imminent war, and conduct recon duties. Said strikes would only be authorised by the Federal President, the Federal Chancellor, the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date11:59:47, August 23, 2005 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageAgainst, this would give our intelligence agency too much power.

Date14:28:04, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageWe do not believe in expanding the powers of our intelligence agency at this time. The suggested expansions are not defensive, but in fact rather agressive. We also fear that these powers will be turned against the Freedoms of our Citizens.

Date15:01:37, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageThe LIP believes that we as nation should have whatever means necessary available to defend ourselves. We would like to note that the Intelligence agency is under the overall control of the government, and so this isnt actually giving them any power - just giving the government more power to defend Rutania. In responce to the comments made by our Right Honourable friends in the Liberty Party, we do not see how allowing our intelligence agency to "undertake all types of covert operations in *other countries*" would affect the freedom of Rutanian citizens.

Date15:53:45, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageI'd like to remind the Rt. Hon. member that we already have an agency devoted to counterintelligence and surveillance. Those two things are vital in the defence of Rutanian interests.

What the Rt. Hon. friend in the Grand Republican Party proposes is to expand the mandate of the intelligence agency to covert operations in other countries. Our objections to this are twofold.

First of all, we do not see how this will improve Rutanian security. Our defensive monitoring and counterintelligence will no doubt be compromised as funding from those critical operations is diverted to ambitious men and women that like to play spy in other countries. This will weaken Rutanian security.

Secondly, we do not see how officially mandating covert operations in other nations is consistent with Rutanian foreign policy and our international status. This sort of proposal will only serve to raise the anxiety of other nations, and destroy our international reputation. It will also encourage states to take countermeasures. This will weaken Rutanian security.

So rather than turning our intelligence agency in an agressive instrument, I feel that we should instead try to find ways to make Rutanian intelligence gathering more effective.

Date15:56:17, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
Message((OOC: I knew there was a reason why I had written threefold objections... bah)))

Finally, in response to the statement that the freedoms of Rutanian citizens would be unaffected, I'd like to remind the Rt. Hon. gentleman that giving enormous power to secret government agencies - including in this case the power to break the law - is just inviting human rights abuses.

Date16:15:48, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageWhilst we respect the opposition of our Rt Hon opponents in the Liberty Party, we are not convinced by your objections which will be dealt with in order.

Firstly, funding for various types of operation will be set by the services involved, and clearly they will not want to compromise our internal security without reason, and will only undertake covert operations in foreign nations if there is good reason to do so. The lack of professionalism that you are implying our intelligence services have is quite frankly shocking, and Im sure that the RIA is deeply offended at the comments you have made. We also do not accept that covert operations in other nations add nothing to national security.

Sabotaging, for example, missile siloes of a foreign nation with which relations are strained is surely not detrminental to national security. We agree that covert operations in other nations should not be undertaken simply for the sake of it, but we do not believe (as you do) that the RIA is that unprofessional and stupid. This is not a matter of necessity now, but at some point in the future war will become a possibility, and these matters will be of necessity rather than choice.

Your second point is equally silly. Foreign nations will not fear or shun us merely because we reserve the right to conduct covert operations to defend ourselves. We already have a military and indeed nuclear arms which can do far more damage. Are we shunned, derided and ostracised? No.

Your third and final point is as baffling as it is wrong. We are giving the intelligence services no more power inside Rutania than they have now, and they have never and will never have the power to break Rutanian law. It is the opinion of the LIP that your objections, whilst welcome, are not valid or convincing.

Date16:26:40, August 23, 2005 CET
From Grand Republican Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageMy LIP comrade is correct on all three points. For the third point- This extension of powers is not for internal matters, but external and foreign concepts. This does not mean the creation of somekind of state Gestapo, as the RIA does not supercede the local, and indeed Federal, law and judicial system

Date16:30:11, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageIf I may be allowed to respond to the Rt. Hon. Gentleman, I would like to elaborate on my early statement to prevent any confusion.

The budget of the RIA is determined by this house, and it is set at what we believe is sufficient funding for its current job. ((OOC: funding which has, unfortunately, not yet been implemented)). If an additional mandate was given, it would have to share that funding with all these new priorities.

I’m frankly surprised that the Rt. Hon. Member is suggesting that Rutanians should sabotage military operations in other countries. To do so would be nothing less than an act of war! It would start exactly the war that we should be trying to prevent. Different rules apply when war has been declared, of course, in which case sabotage and covert ops become par for the course. However, no way should we sanction committing acts of war in peacetime.

Other nations *will* be on their guard when they learn that certain elements in Rutanian politics plan to blow up their military capabilities as a "defensive" measure.

Date16:31:48, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageDid the the GRP not say that the current intelligence agency is "too tied down in legislature and political sensibilities"? That sounds rather like wanting to create a government agency designed to break laws.

Date16:34:49, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageI find it bizarre that the Liberty Party would not support destroying military assets which the RIA believes will be used against Rutania in the very near future. Perhaps you misunderstood my example - I certainly hope that you weren't implying that you wouldnt support destroying a silo containing a missile that a foreign power was threatening to launch at Rutania? Clearly, as I have stated, the RIA will not be allowed to launch sabotage operations in other nations jsut for the sake of it, or "because they can" as the Liberty Party is suggesting, but should it become necessary, the LIP will support any action necessary to defend the people, freedom and government of Rutania. It is all good and proper that foreign nations are "on guard" of every other nations, as I hope we are, but if they are not threatening imminent action against Rutania then they will have nothing to fear, and if they are then I for one couldnt care less about their opinion of us.


Date16:35:22, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
Message[OOC: wth? It posted itself :S Wait a min while I type the rest.]

Date16:39:24, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageNow, as I stated previously (perhaps the Right Honourable gentleman did not understand the points I was attempting to put across?) we accept that if more things are to be done then less money will have to be spent on other things - this is true of every aspect of government, from social services to food labelling - the question is not, however "How much money can we save by cutting back on everything but the very minimum we are required to do?" The question is "What is it that we must do safeguard Rutania, and then how much money will we require to do ALL of those things adequately?" Clearly the Liberty Party asks the first question, and is willing to cut back on vital RIA work in order to save funds. The LIP, however, is not.

With regards to your unfounded scare stories regarding giving the RIA a greater mandate in other countries resulting in a police state in our own, we would ask our Right Honourable friends to provide evidence of this, rather than misinterpretting quotes taken out of context and presenting them as proof of your point of view.

Date17:38:57, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageThe assurances from the Liberal Imperialist Party are soothing, but they are so far merely assurances and not law.

We would consider it a great gesture if the government were to incorporate the assurances that have so far been given into the current bill [OOC: which is atm just a statement of intent by the GRP].

Perhaps the text of the bill can define the mandate of our nation’s intelligence agencies. So far, the examples used by the Liberal Imperialist Party imply *military intelligence* used for defence against imminent attack.

If the bill would define a mandate such as the LIP suggests then this legislation would become a lot less objectionable.

Our movement would favour creating a separate agency for Military Intelligence, including acts such as the LIP suggested, in the event of imminent war or threat of war as well as during wartime. Such a separate agency designed to be a knowledge-centre for these operations, which could utilise military commandos for example instead of intelligence agents, would not muddle the mandate of the RIA and be far more able to perform the tasks suggested than a civilian intelligence agency.

Date17:47:55, August 23, 2005 CET
From Grand Republican Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: What text then would you suggest being included?

Date18:02:44, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: a sort of text that defines the mandate of the intelligence agency. If you were to go with my idea, you could make this bill about creating a *new* intelligence agency dealing with military intelligence which uses such and such resources (military, presumably) as well as defining where and when it is supposed to act. I.e. only abroad, pre-emptively in the case of imminent war, authorised by the Federal president. Something like that. I could give you a set up if you want, but it would basically be creating the agency and setting the mandate.

Date19:19:10, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageWe do not support restrictions upon what may be carried out by the intelligence agencies to defend the realm. I would ask the Rt Hon member to cease the patronising and concending tone he has taken with regards to the Rutanian Intelligence Agency. It would be an honourable move if you were to admit that the RIA does in fact act in the best interests of Rutania, and that you apologise for saying that they would divert funds away from defence to "play spy". I, for one, find this offensive on behalf of all the men and women of the RIA who defend Rutania.

Date20:56:09, August 23, 2005 CET
From Grand Republican Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: Hows that LP?

Date21:04:35, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: Excellent, GRP ;)

I find it quite amusing that the LIP wishes to extend the mandate of the intelligence agencies, but then stalls when it people ask for information actually defining this mandate!

We support a clear mandate for the RIA and any military intelligence agency that might be created because we want to give our men and women a clear job description and adequate support that goes with it. We do not want to give heads of intelligence agencies them a blank checque and shift the blame on them when things go wrong.

I have asked the GRP to amend this bill because I believe in the RIA as an effective instrument of Rutanian policy and I am very pleased with their proposal.

Date21:18:53, August 23, 2005 CET
From Grand Republican Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: Will you support this now, LP?

Date21:52:13, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageMake it "Authorised by the Federal President, the Federal Chancellor, the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary" and you will have our provisional support. Also is "and would be used to strike enemy countries pre-emptively in the case of imminent war" <- this law or is it a mission statement?

Date22:06:57, August 23, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: I support it yes, it is well-worded now. If you dont mind, if it is brought to vote while I have no seats I will vote against to look pretty for the pacifists (stupid coherency ratings still need fixing) but I wont go TOLD YOU SO LOL later on and act as if I have supported it. Wanky? Possibly. But with no seats the last thing I need is to have my coherency destroyed also as I'm pacifist on pretty much every other defence proposal >_>

Date22:16:07, August 23, 2005 CET
From Liberal Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageOOC: That sounds a bit silly and explotive of the game mechanism, but it's your choice.

Date12:02:21, August 24, 2005 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
Message"and would be used to strike enemy countries pre-emptively in the case of imminent war, and conduct recon duties."

We disagree with this mandate. We would support it if it only included reconnaisance duties, but striking pre-emptively without the necessity of a declared war is not justified. It would allow our Government to wage illegal wars.

Date14:05:26, August 24, 2005 CET
From Radical Freedom Party
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageWe are satisfied by the 'imminent war' clause offered in the proposed legislation and can therefore support it.

Date19:25:52, August 24, 2005 CET
From RSDP - Democratic Front
ToDebating the Military Intelligence Bill
MessageWhat is an "imminent war"? A war that is not yet declared and may be avoided. This would alllow our Government to secretly undertake operations in countries we are not at war with, with the excuse they're expecting a war (which would be a possible consequence of such operation).

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 286

no
    

Total Seats: 313

abstain
  

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval.

Random quote: "There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle." - Alexis de Tocqueville

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 81