|
Senate Approval of Planetary Shields
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Monday, 04 Jul 2011, 9:49 PM | Message # 1 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| It's come to my attention that Deralia, the homeworld of Senator Veritas, has recently acquired a planetary shield generator. Senator Veritas is a good man and a fine chairman of the Defense Committee, and I have no doubt that he exercised his best judgment in deciding that Deralia, a planet askance of its sector capital world and is itself on no trade routes of any significance, deserved a planetary shield whereas prominent industrial worlds like Druckenwell, in the estimation of the Defense Committee, do not. But let us agree that planetary shield generators wherever they are have an impact not only on the defense dynamic of the region but also, often, on interstellar commerce—we all know that Imperial Center, for instance, has an entire bureau specifically for the operation of its planetary shields so that the ingress and egress of passengers and freight is not impeded.
Senators, it seems to me that in the future the approval of planetary shield generators is a matter important enough that the entire Senate should be heard on it. I propose, thus, that a majority vote shall be held to approve or deny planetary shield generators from now on. I also propose that the approval of not only the Defense Committee, but also the Commerce Committee be required to bring forth such a vote in the first place. As of now, only the Defense Committee has this responsibility, but I think I've demonstrated that, as an issue that impacts interstellar commerce, the Commerce Committee should also be heard.
I think this is reasonable and I vote in favor.
|
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 5:29 AM | Message # 2 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| Druckenwell is fully in favor of planetary shields.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Exar_Ray | Date: Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 2:47 PM | Message # 3 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 353
Status: Offline
| For the reasons that Senator Cambrist has mentioned, I too vote in favor.
|
| |
| |
| Eli_Fitzgerald | Date: Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 8:18 PM | Message # 4 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 355
Status: Offline
| The Senate knows I'm a defender of a planet's right to defend itself, and I'll vote against any measure that places unnecessary limits on that right, as this one does. I don't disagree with anything Senator Cambrist has said; yes, this is an issue for both the defense and commerce committees to consider, but I don't feel it should be subject to either of their approval. If Druckenwell wants a planetary shield for instance, I don't think that's a decision the Senator from Deralia or Brentaal should be making for it—Druckenwell can make the call itself. Consultation is preferable, obviously. But it shouldn't be required.
Eli Fitzgerald
Senator of Ralltiir (10 BBY—Present)
"I was elected to do some flamethrowing in the Senate. To a light a fire under those Senators and make it hot for them."
|
| |
| |
| Janar_Cerra | Date: Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 10:35 PM | Message # 5 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 379
Status: Offline
| This will come as no surprise to anyone here that Garos IV votes against this measure.
Ja'nar Cerra
Queen of Garos IV
Acting Senator to the Republic, Garos IV
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011, 11:04 PM | Message # 6 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Indeed not, but not for the reason you think.
To respond to Senator Fitzgerald, however, it has been established that the supposed right to "self defense" is not absolute; there are instances in which a planet's interest in self defense is in conflict with Imperial interests, and where Imperial interests are more compelling, these interests must be considered supreme. The reason for this is simple, and I'm sure no one disagrees with it--the greatest good for the greatest number must be a priority of the Empire, as it is of any government. Sometimes a planet with a planetary shield (and other planets too, such as trade partners) is poorly served when its government isn't able to operate the shield competently and ports become congested as a result or, worse, accidents happen. In this example, the Empire has a compelling interest in this and it is not unreasonable for the Senate to be sure that a planet is adequately trained to use a planetary shield generator, and that the correct infrastructure is in place (such as power generators, adequate staff, etc.).
It does impact more than one planet, and thus it is a responsibility of the Senate to study it.
|
| |
| |
| Tremaine_Fowlkes | Date: Thursday, 07 Jul 2011, 8:14 AM | Message # 7 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 881
Status: Offline
| Both Senators Cambrist and Fitgerald provides compelling argument. While it may seems like a good idea to go through Defense Committee for an approval on obtaining a planetary shield to prevent an abuse of power, I also believe that the decision to install a planetary shield should be placed solely on a planet itself. But I am sure we holds a right to send a consultant to advise or to send an inspector to ensure that it is being run properly. I vote against Senator Cambrist's proposal. However, I am here to propose an amendment of my own.
Senator Fowlkes' Amendment of Planetary Shields:
1.) Decisions to obtain a planetary shield should solely be based on a planetary government.
2.) The Defense Committee sends a team of inspectors every six months to ensure a particular planetary shield is being run properly.
3.) A team of consultants may be deployed every quarterly period (about every three months) to provide advice on the betterment of planetary shields.
The purpose of this amendment is to show that planets may make their own decisions to install a planetary shields but the Empire would have to keep an eye on it.
Tremaine Fowlkes
Senator of Telos IV
|
| |
| |
| Slai-Fon | Date: Thursday, 07 Jul 2011, 12:45 PM | Message # 8 |
 Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 160
Status: Offline
| Before I vote on this, I'd like to know everyone's opinion on Senator Fowlkes' Amendment.
Slai-Fon Youngblood, Senator of Anobis, and the Bright Jewel sector
Chairman of ISEC (Imperial Senate Ethic's Committee.)
Chairman & CEO of K/Y deep.
|
| |
| |
| Titus_Veritas | Date: Thursday, 07 Jul 2011, 1:09 PM | Message # 9 |
 Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 166
Status: Offline
| I feel the need to state a few things. Firstly, I must note that Deralia, among several other worlds, is participating in a pilot program in using Imperial funds to supply worlds with major defensive investments that they would otherwise be unable to afford, often doing a half-and-half split on the costs; training included, when necessary. This is all funded through discretionary sections of the Defense budget. A report will, of course, be prepared for the Senate upon the conclusion of this pilot program and study of the results, with legislation likely resulting.
Secondly, while I commend Senator Fowlkes in his proposed amendment, while I am not sure what he means that planetary shield decisions should be based solely upon the planetary government, he has outlined already standing Defense Committee policy and procedure regarding planetary shields, as well as any other invested defense structure. All planetary shield installations already require Defense Committee approval, and all defensive installations are reviewed currently by the Defense Committee's Subcommittee on Local Defense.
Now that I have gone over official Defense Committee policy and procedure, in that all operators of planetary shields are trained by the Empire, planetary shields are inspected every five months, and that every fete week of the year has Imperial military advisors visiting these worlds to ensure their planetary shield operations are running smoothly, along with all other matter of local defense; Senator Cambrist, do you still hold the concerns that you do?
Viceroy Titus Veritas, House Veritas
Consul of the House of Lords
Former Senator of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector (50 BBY - 30 BBY, 18 BBY - 10 BBY)
Former Chairman of the Imperial Senate Defense Committee (18 BBY - 10 BBY)
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Thursday, 07 Jul 2011, 6:22 PM | Message # 10 |
|
Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Senator Veritas, one of us is wrong and I don't believe it's me. I'm not able to find a record anywhere of this supposed procedure for the inspection of planetary shields. Moreover, no regular inspection has taken place on any world to my knowledge or the knowledge of those I've spoken to on this issue (including members of the Defense Committee who have told me they would vigorously oppose such a policy). I wouldn't waste the Senate's time proposing this measure if this procedure of yours was already in place, and under the circumstances it's rather fantastic to suggest there is one when there isn't. I respectfully suggest you review your records, Senator. Is this another "pilot program," perhaps?
To return to this measure, while I do not oppose the Fowlkes Amendment in principle, I don't think it's necessary to pollute my proposal with it. That is, the Fowlkes Amendment can and should in my opinion be proposed as a separate measure, as my proposal is not intended to limit planetary shields in any comprehensive manner but rather, simply, to establish that they are an issue the Senate should vote on. I think my proposal is adequate for this purpose without the Fowlkes Amendment, and I do not include it in the proposal at this time.
|
| |
| |
| Sate_Pestage | Date: Tuesday, 12 Jul 2011, 5:44 PM | Message # 11 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 639
Status: Offline
| I encourage more Senators to be heard on this measure, as the vote as it stands is tied.
Sate Pestage
Grand Vizier of the Empire
Assistant to Emperor Palpatine
Chair of the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Ilanah_Thanatos | Date: Tuesday, 12 Jul 2011, 7:04 PM | Message # 12 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 891
Status: Offline
| Chandrila will vote to approve this measure, Senator Cambrist. Please consider Senator Fowlkes amendments though. He is only trying to look out for the well being of the individual planets. I do not see why you two could not work together to tweak the wording on both.
Ilanah R. Thanatos
Senator of Chandrila
|
| |
| |
| Slai-Fon | Date: Wednesday, 13 Jul 2011, 1:47 AM | Message # 13 |
|
Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 160
Status: Offline
| I will vote In Favor. And Senator Fowlkes, I think you should follow upon Cambrist's suggestion.
Slai-Fon Youngblood, Senator of Anobis, and the Bright Jewel sector
Chairman of ISEC (Imperial Senate Ethic's Committee.)
Chairman & CEO of K/Y deep.
|
| |
| |
| Avadrie_volFyr | Date: Wednesday, 13 Jul 2011, 7:54 AM | Message # 14 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 338
Status: Offline
| Quote "as my proposal is not intended to limit planetary shields in any comprehensive manner but rather, simply, to establish that they are an issue the Senate should vote on"
Empress Teta votes to approve this proposal. No world in the Empire stands alone, and as such this is not a singular decision. I would also like to express my belief that no world truly needs a planetary shield, with the Imperial Navy patrolling the space lanes and protecting our skies.
Lady Avadrie volFyr
Senator of Empress Teta
Defense Committee Member
|
| |
| |
| Tremaine_Fowlkes | Date: Friday, 22 Jul 2011, 11:56 AM | Message # 15 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 881
Status: Offline
| Thank you Senator Youngblood,
I believe I'll withdraw my amendment and propose it as an entirely separate proposal.
Tremaine Fowlkes
Senator of Telos IV
|
| |
| |
|
