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: Extradition Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Populist Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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: April 2114
Description[?]:
| Whereas, Overly restricting extradition hurts our foreign relations with other nations and hurts our ability to get criminals extradited from other countries and Whereas, The nation is divided on the death penalty, with many people in favor of it, and we may pass legislation that allows it, which would render our current extradition policy hypocritical, We hereby propose that we only refuse to make extradition treaties with nations that routinely torture suspects or prisoners. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The terms of extradition.
Old value:: Extradition to nations with capital punishment or with cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects and convicts is not allowed.
Current: Extradition to nations that practice cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects or in punishment is not allowed.
Proposed: Extradition to nations that practice cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects or in punishment is not allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:37:09, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | As long as we do not practice the death penalty ourselves I cannot support exporting people to be killed in other countries. This itself is hypocritical as you say. |
| Date | 00:40:40, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | We think it is hypocritical one way, but not so the other. It is hypocritical if we had the death penalty but refused to extradite to another nation that has it. It is consistent , even if we don't have a death penalty, to say that we will not refuse to extradite just because another country has it. It's called tolerance of differences. You may feel that is a difference that should not be tolerated, and you are entitled to that view; but it is not hypocritical. |
| Date | 02:00:41, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | If I am opposed to killing a man, I do not stand by while my neighbor does it instead. If I am opposed to armed robbery, I do not stand by while my neighbor does it instead. If I am opposed to raping women, I do not stand by while my neighbor does it instead. If I am opposed to enslaving people, I do not stand by while my neighbor does it instead. If I am opposed to arson, I do not stand by while my neighbor does it instead. Killing of people is not something you tolerate from others because it encroaches on the rights of the victim. Enough said? |
| Date | 02:01:37, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | And we certainly shouldn't support it as well. |
| Date | 02:04:57, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | We are opposed to killing an innocent man, if it can be helped. We are not opposed to killing people who are guilty of awful crimes, however. We will stand by while another nation kills a guilty man, whether or not we do it. We do not believe that those who have no regard for others' lives have a right to their own. |
| Date | 13:48:39, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | This means you will also stand by while they kill innocent men. I oppose killing people. Wierd, huh? |
| Date | 16:38:48, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | How does this mean that we will stand by when they kill innocent people? It means that if someone is tried and convicted of a horrible crime, that we will stand by while they kill them. Not innocent people, but guilty people. |
| Date | 00:38:01, September 21, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | Guilty people (in trial speak) can include innocent people. Rephrase: Innocent people are found guilty in court but are later found to be innocent. Unfortunately, when you have executed such people, you can no longer rectify the situation. And many people are found to be innocent after years on death row and after their execution, so don't argue that point. |
| Date | 00:53:19, September 21, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Extradition Reform Act |
| Message | To be more specific, we are not standing by while anyone *intentionally* kills an innocent person, and very rarely when someone unintentionally kills an innocent person. Additionally, have you thought of the foreign policy implications of the current law? Taking a real world example, what if Osama bin Laden were found in Turkey, an ally of the USA; but Turkey refused to hand him over because the USA had the death penalty. What would be the foreign policy implications for Turkey? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 252 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 188 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt |