Use of Force by Imperial Worlds

Avadrie_volFyr

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 3:16 PM | Message # 1

Major general

Group: Users

Messages: 338

Awards: 0

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

Senators, Empress Teta would like to propose the following legislation. I am more than open to comments and suggestions and amendments, and in fact would like to hear them as I feel this is a pressing and recurrent issue within our galaxy and I would like to see the law clarified.

Use of Force by Imperial Worlds Act

In light of recent events such as the Dantooine-Deralia affair, it appears prudent to modify the existing laws related to the requirement to notify the Ruling Council of intended hostilities as well as to clarify the legality of hostile action between Imperial worlds.

Premise 1
It is unreasonable to sanction a world for actions taken that were not opposed by the Ruling Council, as Deralia's intended hostilities were not opposed by the Ruling Council.

Premise 2
Unless the law forbids all hostile action between Imperial Worlds, there must be circumstances under which hostile action is legal and sanctioned by Senate legislation.

Premise 3
It would be counterproductive to require a world to notify the world it intends to begin hostilities with of their intent.

Premise 4
The legality of clandestine forces must also be established, so as to establish some measure of protection for clandestine operatives taken as P.O.W's.

Article I
This legislation keeps in place the requirement to notify the Ruling Council prior to any intended hostile action taken by one Imperial world on another, while adding the requirement that within 48 standard hours of the onset of hostilities the attacking world must present to the Senate a report on the hostilities.

Article II
If the Ruling Council did not oppose the hostilities; there can be no Senate legislated sanctions of the offending world. This is not to say that individual worlds cannot begin operations in defense of the attacked world according to local treaties and the like per the Self and Mutual Defense provisions currently within Imperial Law, but bills such as the Deralian Chastisement Act would be invalid.

Article III
Worlds found to be harboring rebels/separatists/pirates/large criminal organizations are subject to punitive measures to include; loss of Senate representation, removal of the current government, martial law, surrender of all planetary fleet vessels and military forces, and criminal prosecution for government officials accused of collusion with aforementioned groups.

Article IV
Clandestine forces "special ops" are legal in so far as the use of force has been not opposed by the Ruling Council. If captured, they are afforded the same rights as traditional P.O.W's if their government claims them and presents proof that the Ruling Council condoned their use.

Lady Avadrie volFyr
Senator of Empress Teta
Defense Committee Member

Bernard_Oriel

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 4:25 PM | Message # 2

Colonel general

Group: Users

Messages: 803

Awards: 1

Reputation: 2

Status: Offline

This act (perhaps intentionally) misunderstands the nature of a "Ruling Council Sanction". In this case the Ruling Council noted that it did not oppose the Deralian strike on Dantooine, it did not explicitly support it (as the Grand Vizier has made clear I believe). I agree that if the Ruling Council gives explicit permission for an act of war, or requests it, then there can be no legal sanction. I don't oppose people aborting children, but I recognize worlds have the right to ban it if they wish.

I am sure the Ruling Council "doesn't mind" a lot of things, that doesn't mean that we should prevent worlds exercising their freedom.

I'm not going to vote to give spies the status of PoWs, if we do then why would armies wear uniforms? Spies are spies and must be dealt with as such. If a man is in uniform he is not a spy, if he is dressed like a civilian (as the Deralian commandos on Dantooine were) then they should be punished as criminals. This is an act which completely tramples over the rights of Imperial worlds to decide their own policy regarding terrorists.

I believe in planetary freedom, thus I believe policy regarding PoWs etc are for planets to decide, and thus I vote against. I further state that I do not believe the Ruling Council would support this Act (they haven't explicitly condemned a large number of operations, this doesn't mean they support to them).

Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate

Avadrie_volFyr

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 4:44 PM | Message # 3

Major general

Group: Users

Messages: 338

Awards: 0

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

The intention of the article regarding clandestine P.O.Ws is to provide a means for worlds to claim their own "spies". I think it would perhaps minimize the brutality of war and the associated loss of life.

I concede the point that while the Ruling Council may not be endorsing an action by not opposing it, couldn't it also be said that the reverse is also true? While they don't endorse it, they also don't oppose it? If the Ruling Council and above them the Emperor is the ultimate law in the galaxy, if they don't impose punishment, why should the Senate?

Lady Avadrie volFyr
Senator of Empress Teta
Defense Committee Member

Ilanah_Thanatos

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 4:55 PM | Message # 4

Colonel general

Group: Users

Messages: 891

Awards: 3

Reputation: 4

Status: Offline

Why shouldn't the Senate, Senator VolFyr? Why should the Ruling Council be the only ones permitted to "approve" or "deny" an attack on another world? That being said, why should anyone be allowed to endorse an act of force on another world? What if that world cannot defend itself in any way?

Ilanah R. Thanatos
Senator of Chandrila

Bernard_Oriel

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 4:58 PM | Message # 5

Colonel general

Group: Users

Messages: 803

Awards: 1

Reputation: 2

Status: Offline

I believe, regrettably, under certain circumstances and after the due process of law it is right to execute spies if they have murdered innocent people. The Deralian spies on Dantooine murdered innocent people, and you want to rubber stamp that murder.

I'm saying that if the Ruling Council expresses a neutral opinion it essentially concedes that the issue is to be solved elsewhere. The Ruling Council expressed the Neutrality of the Empire regarding a Deralia-Dantooine conflict, not the full support.

I think I speak for the Ruling Council when I say that they would not want vague statements of neutrality be considered Imperial "rubber stamping" or support of actions which would be taken to preclude Senatorial action. Just because they would not punish for it doesn't mean they believe anyone else should not punish for it. Actions of petty worlds are (I assume) not something the Ruling Council actually is able to spend much time on (they're just too insignificant) so that is why the Senate is useful to them because it has more time and Committees which are equipped to discuss minor matters of planetary combat.

As I say, I am willing to bet the Ruling Council does not explicitly oppose aborting a fetus, or imposing fines for driving offences, or taxing hypermatter - this does not mean that the Senate should not be empowered to do so - and that is why this Act is poorly thought out. It effectively means that the Ruling Council has to spend much much more time on small matters of planetary war, taking their time from important duties (since you would have their neutral statements be statements of Imperial Doctrine). Neutrality is not complete support, and shouldn't be regarded as such.

It's a bad act which takes power away from the people of the Empire, and while it gives the power to a responsible authority, I am not convinced that this is power that the Ruling Council wants or needs, and am convinced it would do much to obstruct their work. I think it should be noted that I am as loyal an Imperial servant as any, and that my opposition to this act comes soley for my wish for a better Empire, and a Ruling Council who is not encumbered with responsibility they do not want or need.

Lets keep the Senate empowered to deal with the power it was created for - to arbitrate disputes between worlds and see to just resolutions - while recognizing the existing right of the Ruling Council to veto acts if it is just to do so.

Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate

Avadrie_volFyr

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 5:02 PM | Message # 6

Major general

Group: Users

Messages: 338

Awards: 0

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

(we posted at the same time thereabouts it looked like)

I feel this legislation would prevent politically powerful worlds from having their hostile actions endorsed by the Senate, while less politically powerful worlds have their actions condemned.

For instance - Druckenwell placed ships in orbit of Monor II, a world which had far less means to defend itself than Dantooine, but there was no proposed "Druckenwell Chastisement Act" - the same claims of conquering aims were applied to Druckenwell's actions but the galactic response was not the same as it has been to Deralia's actions.

My question is why is this? My intent is to provide a uniform fashion for the Senate to handle such disputes evenly and fairly each time. A premise within the legislation states that there must be times when hostile action is endorsed, such as the act of pursuing known terrorists. Perhaps we could compose an article which specifies under what circumstances hostile action is allowable?

With your thoughts in mind Senator Oriel, perhaps the legislation could be rewritten to specify the circumstances under which the Senate could impose such sanctions. I suppose what I am attempting to get across is perhaps it would behoove the Senate to put into writing what constitutes legal military action and what circumstances justify it.

Lady Avadrie volFyr
Senator of Empress Teta
Defense Committee Member

Message edited by Avadrie_volFyr - Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 5:06 PM

Bernard_Oriel

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 5:50 PM | Message # 7

Colonel general

Group: Users

Messages: 803

Awards: 1

Reputation: 2

Status: Offline

I opposed Druckenwell at Monor II. But tell me Senator, how many people died as a result of the Druckenwellian operation there? Zero.

That is why Druckenwell escaped punishment, Druckenwell blockaded a world and failed in it's objectives. Druckenwell never stated it wished to or attempted to invade Monor II, it blockaded it - a perfectly acceptable form of protest. It didn't send terrorists to Monor II, it didn't send terrorists to murder Monor II civilians and children.

Deralia's actions are to be held abominable because it attacked Dantooine, unprovoked, with no attempt at diplomacy. It still has provided no evidence of Dantooine complicity in terrorism (which it claims was it's reason - desire to invade Dantooine seems a more likely reason). Not only that, Deralia lied to the Senate about the issue.

Over a dozen Dantooine citizens lie strewn across it's fair fields thanks to Deralian aggression, that is why I believe it should be punished. State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism, and Deralia needs to "do the time" for it's crime.

Hostile action is never "allowable" as a matter of course, there should be no law which states "It's okay to attack x if y happens." every circumstance must be weighed carefully in the balance and judged on it's particular individual merits. That is why oversight from both Senate and Ruling Council is useful, so that matters may be debated individually and a solution reached. Judging mass conflicts does not lend itself to the formulaic legislative method.

If the Senate believes an assault is wrong in principle, or if the conduct of the assault was wrong (which I do believe is an important factor) then it is best for the Empire as a whole to have a debate and the will of the Senate to be useful in deciding if a world has acted poorly.

For example, a hypothetical.

World A: I would like to declare war on world B.
Imperial Ruling Council: We don't really have an opinion but we don't oppose it.
World A procedes to go to world B, commit terrorism and even genocide, massacring millions.

Should world A not be punishable? Of course it should.

Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate

Senator_Cambrist

Date: Monday, 02 Jan 2012, 6:35 PM | Message # 8

Lieutenant general

Group: Users

Messages: 761

Awards: 6

Reputation: -5

Status: Offline

Quote (Avadrie_volFyr)

I suppose what I am attempting to get across is perhaps it would behoove the Senate to put into writing what constitutes legal military action and what circumstances justify it.

I draw Senator volFyr's attention to Section II, Article I and Article II of the Intra-Imperial Relations Act. You'll find that the circumstances under which the use of force is permissible among Imperial worlds is already defined—the use of force must be "prudent and necessary for a world's security interests, commercial interests, or for the purposes of law enforcement or the protection or extraction of its citizens." Since this definition is rather broad, the law also provides some examples of lawful uses of force.

I find the existing law to be adequate (that is, with the addition of an amendment to it I recently proposed). I agree with Senator Oriel on both counts; first and foremost, that the Empire in most cases hasn't "endorsed" the use of force, and second, that the Senate shouldn't be endorsing or opposing the use of force in a formal or quantified sense but, instead, do what it's purposed to do—reflect the sensibilities of the people on a case-by-case basis. The people and thus the Senate were roused to indignation at Deralia's conduct at Dantooine. Not so Druckenwell's conduct at Monor II. This shows us that these crises are not the same, as Senator Oriel noted, and should not always be treated as such.

Returning to the point, I feel the existing law is adequate because it does not require the Empire to "endorse" or "oppose" the use of force. The wording of the law requires notification of the use of force so that the Ruling Council can consider it and object to it if it sees a need to. It is intended to preserve the prerogatives of the Empire without requiring it to exercise its prerogatives in every case. For this reason I vote against this bill.