Proposal: NSA Code of Conduct

[Belschaft]

I want to clean this up a bit (couple of issues I have, should have time to do it tonight) before considering it for vote.

[Rebel-topia]

There's nothin' that says it depends on the size of the army, and, if that's the intention, it should be on paper.  If not, we're just gonna have a bunch of 'officers' and no enlisted personnel, or vice versa.  Doesn't really avoid the too many chiefs and not enough Indians problem.

 
You leave this to the MoA & Generals. Theres no need to define every little part of the NSA and what we are and are not allowed, can and cannot do. 

[Drugged Monkeys]

I want to clean this up a bit (couple of issues I have, should have time to do it tonight) before considering it for vote.

Do you mind pointing it out before you do it?

[Penguin]

i didnt realize it had been motioned already Bel? and I agree with DM.... post before you change? this is a discussion after all  

[Belschaft]

I'm sitting here staring at an ungodly mess of BBCode, and hating you right now DM <_<

[Belschaft]

 

New Southern Army Code of Conduct

 

Preamble:

[font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"]This document hereby establishes the New Southern Army (hereby known as NSA) Code of Conduct. These rules and guidelines shall be written instruction for all members of the NSA to follow.[/font]



Article 1: Command Structure<ul class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]The NSA will be led by the Minister of the Army and a panel of three Generals, herein referred to as the General Corps.

[*]Further ranks will be bestowed at the discretion of the General Corps.

[*]All new NSA members will be designated the rank of Private until such time as they have a a complete understanding of the Code of Conduct and NS military gameplay.

[*]Beyond the MoA and General Corps, the rankings will be as follows from next highest on down; Major, Captain, Private 1<sup class='bbc'>st</sup> Class, Private. 

[*]The General Corps is responsible for the planning of and overseeing of all missions of the NSA.

[/list]Article 2: Requirements of Membership<ul class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]NSA members must be Citizens of The South Pacific in full compliance with the Charter and Code of Laws.

[*]NSA members are required to keep an influence puppet in TSP, for purposes of regional defense. When not participating in operations, members are encouraged to gather WA endorsements and influence on this nation.

[*]NSA members must treat each other with respect and offer assistance to one-another whenever possible.

[*]NSA members are expected to participate in at least one update a week, when not on a leave of absence, provided three or more operations are planned and carried out in a given week.

[/list]Article 3: Disciplinary Regulations, Procedures and Actions

Section 1 - Disciplinary Regulations<ul class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]Aiding the enemy; Giving an enemy region or organisation any information or assistance, in particular serving in enemy forces or spreading enemy propaganda.

[*]Disgraceful conduct; Conduct unbecoming of a member of the NSA.

[*]Disobeying a lawful command; Intentionally or recklessly disobeying a lawful command.

[*]​Espionage; obtaining or attempting to obtain information of a confidential, restricted or private nature with the intent to disclose said information to an individual or individuals not authorized to possess it.

[*]Ill-Treating Subordinates; Bullying, humiliating, degrading or using unnecessarily harsh behavior against a subordinate.

[*]Misconduct towards a superior officer; Disrespectful behavior or communication to a superior officer.

[*]Obstructing an operation; Putting at risk or otherwise delaying, disrupting or discouraging a lawful operation.

[*]Failure to meet membership requirements; Failing to meet the NSA requirements of membership.

[/list]Section 2 - Disciplinary Procedures<ul class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]Should any NSA member be accused of breach of the Disciplinary Regulations the matter shall be decided by a Military Tribunal.

[*]The Tribunal will consist of the General Corps, or in place of vacancy or conflict of interest the next ranking NSA member.

[*]The Minister of the Army will appoint a Prosecuting Officer, who must be a serving NSA member.

[*]The accused party is entitled to a Defending Officer, who must be a serving NSA member.

[*]The Tribunal will determine both facts and, in the result of conviction, sentence.

[*]Should in the course of the hearing criminal allegations be discovered the Minister of the Army is obligated to pursue a criminal prosecution.

[/list]Section 3 - Disciplinary Actions<ul class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]Demotion.

[*]Dishonorable Discharge.

[*]Honorable Discharge.

[*]Private apology.

[*]Public apology.

[*]Suspension.

[/list]Article 4: Supremacy<ul class="bbc bbcol decimal">

[*]The Code of Conduct is a subsidiary document, and any contradictions with either The Charter of Code of Laws shall be considered null and void.

[/list]

[Drugged Monkeys]

I disapprove of the new draft here Bel. You have not just cleaned it up, but effectivly reworded and changed several key points.
 
I have no problem with rewording things to make it cleaner, but removing things is an issue.
 
I prefer the original draft to this. The wording was sound, as was the stucture of it. People were happy with and ready to vote on that draft, but now it is changed completely.

[Topid]

In general I like it, as I told DM elsewhere I think the 1 update per week requirement seems like a lot, I don't think that is actually going to work out well. But other than that I'm okay with it.

[Belschaft]

One draft and two days of debate a legislative process does not make DM. I consider my redraft superior on the following grounds;
 
1. It is in the correct legislative format
2. It possess no redundant clauses; for example, there is no need to state that all NSA members must obey TSP laws. Nor does it need stating that it can be amended by the assembly.
3. It establishes and lays out a disciplinary process, to go with the disciplinary offences, rather than the vague 'disciplinary action will be judged on a case by case basis'
4. It does not contain the blatantly unconstitutional clause allowing the NSA to declare someone guilty of treason
5. All offences are not grouped under the single charge of 'insubordination', which is inane
6. Each offence is given a formal name and a brief description, ordered alphabetically
7. The offences it lays out cover considerably more situations, including some very possible ones
 
Articles one and two I have left substantively alone; my edits there are technical. I have made substantive amendments to article three. They produced a more detailed, easier to understand, logically ordered and fairer disciplinary system. I would like you to identify any part of clause three you object to, or feel is inferior to the prior version.

[Drugged Monkeys]

I understand these things, that is why we are in a discussion. I wasnt aware that we had a "correct legislative format" to follow
 
I wish we could have discussed these points with the entire group so that adjustments could have been made individually.
As I said, most people agreed with the original format and now it has been altered on several points. It's not an issue that things have been changed per say, just that fact that so many have changed all at once. We now need to discuss this for a few more days

[Belschaft]

Discussing these things with the entire group is the legislative process. That is what is happening now.

[Belschaft]

In general I like it, as I told DM elsewhere I think the 1 update per week requirement seems like a lot, I don't think that is actually going to work out well. But other than that I'm okay with it.

I should note that it is one update a week if three or more operations happen in said week (in effect 33% of operations) and in my version unless a leave of absence is in effect.

[Rebel-topia]

My only issue is, when it comes to the NSA, there WILL be classified information. And if someone is charged with treason in the Supreme Court of TSP, that could lead to some of this classified information being presented as evidence, which, in effect, would be a breach of the NSA CoC.
 
I think this may go down a slippery slope, but I think there needs to be some way to keep the classified info within the NSA (or maybe no more than the Chief Justice on the outside). Im very much against bringing classified information into a public hearing thread.

[Loh]

I like it. My only issue is the same RT pointed above. 

[Belschaft]

That is the price we pay for freedom. Secret courts hearing secret evidence is a road we cannot go down. We can also safely assume that anyone court martialed out of the NSA for leaking information will have... well, leaked evidence. At that point in time it isn't secret anymore. If your concerned about the 'NSA giving information to prosecutor = espionage' thing, that's covered by 'authorized to possess it'.
 
End of the day? The right to a free, fair and public trial is more integral to TSP than any NSA operation could ever be. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you drafted the clause allowing the NSA to conduct secret treason trials via a process determined 'on a case by case basis', but if you seriously thought there was any possibility I would ever allow that to come to vote whilst CoA you haven't been paying attention to anything I've said in the last two years.

[Alv]

I like it, But you can't really force someone to give a public apology

[Belschaft]

You can actually; if they don't, you discharge them.

[Minbaric Federal Zones]

I concur with the Honourable Chair in regards to his points on the disciplinary process and the necessity free, fair and public trial. Substantive justice and due process must be honoured even when it might be inconvenient or embarrassing, or, given the attitude of Rebel-topia, perhaps even more so.

[Drugged Monkeys]

Right, I totally see your ponit Bel. Once it is leaked, its leaked.

[thehegamon]

Ok, I still think the jump to Captain just looks like a massive jump, it makes it seem like the lower ranks are unconnected to the upper ones...a bit too caste.  I mean don't the limited number of Generals already make it clear that the upper levels are higher up and separated?   It should look connected in some fashion, or it will look as if there is an military aristocracy that doesn't connect to the lower ranks...which always leads to ruin...or Milo's...  Just state that there are limited numbers of each rank - with smooth ranking names of any type-, and lay the numbers out at some point to make it clear the power structure is defined.   Just my stupid opinion though...lowly private here

[Penguin]

Bels, while I agree to a point with what you are saying, I can see Rebel's point as well. Even though "once leaked it's leaked" makes sense depending on the situation, shouldn't containing said leak be a key part of an already sour situation? 
 
I understand that a fair trail is in order for all of TSP, however if they are up for Treason, for giving away secrets and such, shouldn't we still be keeping the safety of TSP in mind?

[Minbaric Federal Zones]

Bels, while I agree to a point with what you are saying, I can see Rebel's point as well. Even though "once leaked it's leaked" makes sense depending on the situation, shouldn't containing said leak be a key part of an already sour situation? 
 
I understand that a fair trail is in order for all of TSP, however if they are up for Treason, for giving away secrets and such, shouldn't we still be keeping the safety of TSP in mind?

 
If *I* were the prosecutor (which I note that I am not, currently) and I was worried about a specific case, I would argue that the treason is complete and proven upon a showing that there was classified information, that the defendant possessed that information, and the defendant caused it to be delivered into unfriendly hands, and that, accordingly, the exact content of that information is not an element of the offense that need be proven in the prosecution so long as a showing of classification can be made (IE, identify the general type of information -- IE list of planned military actions and assignment of of personnel to participate).

[Drugged Monkeys]

If *I* were the prosecutor (which I note that I am not, currently) and I was worried about a specific case, I would argue that the treason is complete and proven upon a showing that there was classified information, that the defendant possessed that information, and the defendant caused it to be delivered into unfriendly hands, and that, accordingly, the exact content of that information is not an element of the offense that need be proven in the prosecution so long as a showing of classification can be made (IE, identify the general type of information -- IE list of planned military actions and assignment of of personnel to participate).

 
True. When the case arises, the actual information does not need to be shared per say.
 

Ok, I still think the jump to Captain just looks like a massive jump, it makes it seem like the lower ranks are unconnected to the upper ones...a bit too caste.  I mean don't the limited number of Generals already make it clear that the upper levels are higher up and separated?   It should look connected in some fashion, or it will look as if there is an military aristocracy that doesn't connect to the lower ranks...which always leads to ruin...or Milo's...  Just state that there are limited numbers of each rank - with smooth ranking names of any type-, and lay the numbers out at some point to make it clear the power structure is defined.   Just my stupid opinion though...lowly private here

 
I really don't see this as an issue. If people find it unconnecting, we can always just make it Rank 1, 2 ,3 4, 5. The visual look of it makes no difference as long as it is defined somewhere. I do plan on making a list of how many of each position will be allowed compared to the amount of each other rank

[Rebel-topia]

I understand leaked is leaked. Thats not my point.
 
What about the cases that dont deal with leaked information? Surely there will be logs and the like that are barely anything but black overlay if we were to blackout the classified parts... and evidence that is classified that is directly related to the case...

[Belschaft]

Then talk to the court justice in that case, see what procedures he is willing to use. The NSA isn't a court, and judicial powers are reserved in Article 4, Section 2 of the Charter.