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: Patriot Resolution
Details
Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2255
Description[?]:
| In light of the AAP(R) treachery, we wish to make representation in the Convocation subject to an Oath of Allegiance to Likatonian Interests, to be sworn by all representatives of all parties. We suggest the following: "I, as a representative of the Likaton Peoples, swear to serve their interests, uphold Likatonian Law, both domestically and internationally, and to place the national interest above all else." We also suggest proven breach of the Oath be made a capital crime. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:33:23, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | The AAP already swears a similar oath, and was swearing such oaths while the HSP were playing with their blocks. Curiously - although we suspect it is not the angle the HSP might hope for... we believe that the HSP and the LFF are currently incapable of truthfully swearing such an oath, since they have both recently breached both Likatonian AND international law - by exceeding the remit of certain Treaties. |
| Date | 21:36:11, July 13, 2006 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | That is a slanderous accusation...I hope you can back that up with facts, otherwise we will have a little extra in the Party coffers once our legal team are done with you. We ask, nicely, that you withdraw your accusations, or prove them. The RSAHS |
| Date | 21:43:07, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | Actually - proving the complicity of the HSP (and the RWLP, although, since they ahve recently recanted and joined the Dove Faction, we are inclined to believe they were coerced) is not difficult. The relatively non-binding "Likatonia and Valruzia military co-operation treaty" asks very little... but one of the things that IS a central tenet is: "Likatonia and Valruzia bind themselves mutually to respect the integrity and inviolability of their mutual territories and will take no measure that is aimed directly or indirectly against the other contracting party." Thus, the LFF bill to propose occupation of Zuma, and the HSP complicity and support for that same action, is a clear breach of the treaty... and thus, a breach of international law, and of Likatonian law... since the Likatonian government is bound to keep it's word. |
| Date | 21:49:58, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | I believe that you would find that a very shaky argument, in legal circles, not to mention moral and semantic ones. We merely campaigned on behalf of the poeple of Zuma for their own independance. We believe the treaty is about people, not power-broking. We were merely acting in accordance with the treaty, by supporting the inviolate sovereignty of the Zuman people. We notice that of all parties, yours was the only one to vote against; already in the Valaruzian governmental pocket by then? |
| Date | 22:00:35, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | "Likatonia and Valruzia bind themselves mutually to respect the integrity and inviolability of their mutual territories and will take no measure that is aimed directly or indirectly against the other contracting party." Zuma is a Valruzian territory, whether or not it is contested for independence. Thus, for us to push to occupy it, was, at best, breach of that part of the Treaty. It was also "aimed directly or indirectly against the other contracting party". Thus - we were in breach twice. Possibly the HSP considers this a shaky argument... that would explain why they (we now assume, unwittingly) supported the LFF's treasonous action. As to WHY the AAP opposed... we were under the impresion we had already addressed that matter. |
| Date | 22:05:17, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | Carefully sidestepped, but again, I point out that the majority of our government supported the action; and of all parties, only one opposed. This alone should suggest that your position is both solitary, and clearly a personal interpretation, rather than a governmental one. |
| Date | 22:16:16, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | The majority of representatives supported the Breach of Treaty, but not the majority of parties. The fact that the bulk of those representatives that voted FOR Breach of Treaty belonged to the two fundamental member parties of the Hawk Faction should not be overlooked. It is possible the RWLP forgot that occupying Zuma would be a breach of contract... but, that is no excuse. The fact is - the law WAS broken. As for being the solitary party to oppose... this is not logically founded... two parties abstained, which is certainly not APPROVAL for the action. As the only AVOWED pacifist party, it may be that the AAP was the only party who actually NEEDED to expliitly 'oppose'. Overall, then - an equal number of PARTIES opposed the move as supported it... it just happened that the Hawk Faction held more seats at that point, and forced legislation through against the will of the people. |
| Date | 22:33:23, July 13, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | The delegates of the AM RLP were unavoidably, and curiously, detained and were unable to cast a vote in that matter. Had we been there, we would have voted against breaching the treaty before withdrawing from it; and against withdrawing from it. We do not need to expend the lives of our brave men and women on foreign adventurism, they are needed at home to support and defend their homes and families. |
| Date | 22:40:11, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | The AAP thoroughly endorses the opinions of the AM RLP in this matter. We had had our suspicions that the AM RLP would have opposed but might have been detained, but didn't want to make such a claim without checking our facts first. |
| Date | 22:48:42, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | We resent the accusation that we in the RSAHS had anything to do with the unfortunate failure of the AMRLP representatives absence, and deny any part in any circumstances relating to said detention. The AAP (R) can thoroughly endorse all it likes, but the AM RLP should remain cautious about who it chooses to associate with...it would be a shame if we were forced to take stronger measures to protect our sovereignty, and they were caught in the wrong place at the worst of times... |
| Date | 23:36:44, July 13, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | Indeed? The RASH... RSAHS?... yes, RSAHS. Unpleasant RASH. Ah, sometimes, Mr Anakrousis is so easily amused... Anyway... the comment was SUPPOSED to be... Indeed? The RSAHS is worried about the 'safety' of the AM RLP because of their decision to oppose the breaking of Treaties? What a peculiar scenario... I wonder which specific danger it is that the RSAHS feels might be a worry? |
| Date | 17:06:51, July 14, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | As I recall, we made no accusations. It may be just coincidence that the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, which was under the control of the RSASH at that time, chose then to repair all the roads around AM RLP headquarters, effectively sealing our delegates in after their weekly strategy session. We view with alarm the tone taken in the latest missive from the RSASH. One might almost think that we were being threatened. One might also note that our party militia has recently undergone a reorganization and has completed training excercises designed to defend us against any illegal activities. |
| Date | 17:09:20, July 14, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | As to the current bill, we need to know who defines "national interest ", before deciding on this measure. We could certainly support an oath to uphold Likatonian law, including treaties currently in effect. |
| Date | 17:26:03, July 14, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | This resolution duplicates an oath the AAP already takes, and - as the AM RLP says, does not give nearly enough information to make a value judgement. Since this is just a resolution, we feel safe not voting either way, unless further explanation is forthcoming. |
| Date | 05:10:58, July 15, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Patriot Resolution |
| Message | Parties that abstained from voting for or agains the treaty cannot be considered to have had any pursuasion either way. At least the AAP had the fortitude to put their cards on the table. Abstaining at a crucial time like that particular vote is unforgiveable. Are you seriously telling us that your party the AM RLP could not have called, sent a messenger or even set off a couple of flares with a homing pigeon to boot? This is not the dark ages - well apart from isolated villages in Gokitan that is. We suggest that there we other, more nefarious regions why the AM RWLP failed to vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 63 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 437 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err." - Mahatma Gandhi |