Return to September 10th Bill [Final passage at vote]

[Colin]

Alright I'm going to start the vote on this.

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Torie]

Aye.

[Meeker]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye

[Verily]

Aye

[Colin]

Final Tally

Aye: 6 (Torie, Meeker, Colin Wixted, Lewis Trondheim, afleitch, Verily)
Nay: 0
Abstain: 0
Not Voting: 3 (Bacon King, CultureKing, AndrewCT)

This bill has passed. The 24 hour waiting period is waved due to unanimous support. I hereby present it to the President for his signature or veto.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Before I sign or veto, could someone please construct the final text of the bill all in one place so I know what I'd be signing or vetoing?

[Colin]

Neither Torie nor Lewis stated which bill they wanted to amendment, the presidential redraft or the original. I concluded that they wanted to amend the Presidential redraft due to the logic of the numbering however this goes against Meeker's original statement that he wanted legal prosecution for corporations under Section 1 of the original bill. I'd really like this clarified by the sponsors of both the bill and the amendment. I should have noticed it sooner but I really just wanted to get this thing out of the damn Senate as quickly as possible.

[Torie]

I simply modified Lewis's amendment, so Lewis is the man to ask.

[Meeker]

The bill I want sent to Moderate is the one that allows prosecution of phone companies.

[Colin]

Alright then this is the current bill and the bill that was passed by the Senate, Lewis meant to say Section 4 instead of Section 3:

Return to September 10th Bill

Section 1: Telecommunications Immunity Clarification

1. The current Atlasian government acknowledges that after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, telecommunications companies cooperated with the United States government in providing illegal access to customers' private information, including conversations which were 'wiretapped.'
2. The current Atlasian government supports prosecuting all companies involved, as well as anyone found guilty of providing these orders within the government, to the fullest extent of the law.

Section 2: Torture and Simulated Drowning

1. The government recognizes that torture is, and has been regardless of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, illegal, as confirmed in F.L. 22-7.
2. Simulated drowning, or 'waterboarding,' is a form of torture and remains prohibited by law.
3. The current government encourages that any member of the government found to have ordered or performed acts of torture be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Section 3: Free Speech Zones

1. The use of "free speech zones" as restricted areas where protesting may be permitted is to be discontinued immediately.

Section 4: Guantanamo Bay
1. The prison camp located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is to be closed within six months after this act becomes law.

2.
a. All those presently detained who are not duly charged within 90 days of the enactment of this Act shall be released to their country of origin.

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of 2.a., in any case where (ii) [(i)]  the country of origin of any such prisoner otherwise subject to release is disputed, and the court with jurisdiction is unable due to insufficient evidence to make a finding of fact of such country of origin, or (ii)  the rendition of any such prisoner to any such country of origin is found by such court to pose a substantial risk that such prisoner will be subjected to torture or the death penalty in such country of origin, such prisoner shall be released and granted political in Atlasia.

c. All those detained in Guantanamo Bay with due charge shall be transferred to the ordinary federal prison system, and  prosecuted in accordance with the same federal  law which  obtains for the citizens of Atlasia residing within the nation of Atlasia.

[minionofmidas]

Neither Torie nor Lewis stated which bill they wanted to amendment, the presidential redraft or the original. I concluded that they wanted to amend the Presidential redraft due to the logic of the numbering however this goes against Meeker's original statement that he wanted legal prosecution for corporations under Section 1 of the original bill. I'd really like this clarified by the sponsors of both the bill and the amendment. I should have noticed it sooner but I really just wanted to get this thing out of the damn Senate as quickly as possible.

Seems that I overlooked the renumbering there. My bad, sorry.

[Colin]

Neither Torie nor Lewis stated which bill they wanted to amendment, the presidential redraft or the original. I concluded that they wanted to amend the Presidential redraft due to the logic of the numbering however this goes against Meeker's original statement that he wanted legal prosecution for corporations under Section 1 of the original bill. I'd really like this clarified by the sponsors of both the bill and the amendment. I should have noticed it sooner but I really just wanted to get this thing out of the damn Senate as quickly as possible.

Seems that I overlooked the renumbering there. My bad, sorry.

No problem, it just kinda confused me and I was mad at myself that I didn't notice it sooner.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Hmm.  I'd like to sign the last three parts into law, but I'm not sure I'm willing to go along with the first.

I'm going to think about this for a little bit.

[minionofmidas]

Hmm.  I'd like to sign the last three parts into law, but I'm not sure I'm willing to go along with the first.

I'm going to think about this for a little bit.

You do know you can't do a second presidential redraft, so it's all or nothing?

Just checking.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Hmm.  I'd like to sign the last three parts into law, but I'm not sure I'm willing to go along with the first.

I'm going to think about this for a little bit.

You do know you can't do a second presidential redraft, so it's all or nothing?

Just checking.

Hence why I'm still thinking.

[Meeker]

Keep in mind it isn't saying that they're guilty, it's just saying that if there's evidence they've committed a crime then they'll be prosecuted.

And if they did nothing illegal, why would it matter if we prosecute them? They'd just be found innocent.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Policeman: Hey.  You.  Park your car over here.  I want to talk to you.

Driver:  Okay.

Policeman: I am going to write you a ticket.

Driver: For what?

Policeman: For parking in the no parking zone right here.  That's illegal.

Driver: But you just told me to park here.

Policeman: Yup.

Driver: You're going to write me a ticket for something you told me to do?

Policeman: Yes.  You should have known better than to follow an order from your government.

THE
END

[Meeker]

Policeman: Hey.  You.  Park your car over here.  I want to talk to you.

Driver:  Okay.

Policeman: I am going to write you a ticket.

Driver: For what?

Policeman: For parking in the no parking zone right here.  That's illegal.

Driver: But you just told me to park here.

Policeman: Yup.

Driver: You're going to write me a ticket for something you told me to do?

Policeman: Yes.  You should have known better than to follow an order from your government.

THE
END

And then it goes to court and the ticket gets thrown out.

THE
END

[Associate Justice PiT]

Policeman: Hey.  You.  Park your car over here.  I want to talk to you.

Driver:  Okay.

Policeman: I am going to write you a ticket.

Driver: For what?

Policeman: For parking in the no parking zone right here.  That's illegal.

Driver: But you just told me to park here.

Policeman: Yup.

Driver: You're going to write me a ticket for something you told me to do?

Policeman: Yes.  You should have known better than to follow an order from your government.

THE
END

And then it goes to court and the ticket gets thrown out.

THE
END

     Which is groovy for the driver who had to waste time & money fighting the ticket.

[Meeker]

Policeman: Hey.  You.  Park your car over here.  I want to talk to you.

Driver:  Okay.

Policeman: I am going to write you a ticket.

Driver: For what?

Policeman: For parking in the no parking zone right here.  That's illegal.

Driver: But you just told me to park here.

Policeman: Yup.

Driver: You're going to write me a ticket for something you told me to do?

Policeman: Yes.  You should have known better than to follow an order from your government.

THE
END

And then it goes to court and the ticket gets thrown out.

THE
END

     Which is groovy for the driver who had to waste time & money fighting the ticket.

Which could be applied to any case where a defendant is eventually found innocent...

And it's not like these are poor drivers. They're multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations with hundreds of lawyers.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Policeman: Hey.  You.  Park your car over here.  I want to talk to you.

Driver:  Okay.

Policeman: I am going to write you a ticket.

Driver: For what?

Policeman: For parking in the no parking zone right here.  That's illegal.

Driver: But you just told me to park here.

Policeman: Yup.

Driver: You're going to write me a ticket for something you told me to do?

Policeman: Yes.  You should have known better than to follow an order from your government.

THE
END

And then it goes to court and the ticket gets thrown out.

THE
END

     Which is groovy for the driver who had to waste time & money fighting the ticket.

Which could be applied to any case where a defendant is eventually found innocent...

And it's not like these are poor drivers. They're multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations with hundreds of lawyers.

     & which should be applied to any case where a defendent was found innocent after being charged frivolously.

     Nevertheless, even though the corporations are plenty rich, it kind of sucks that they have to waste time dealing with something that happened through no fault of their own. Per the president's example of a driver being punished for following the government's instructions.

[Meeker]

Policeman: Hey.  You.  Park your car over here.  I want to talk to you.

Driver:  Okay.

Policeman: I am going to write you a ticket.

Driver: For what?

Policeman: For parking in the no parking zone right here.  That's illegal.

Driver: But you just told me to park here.

Policeman: Yup.

Driver: You're going to write me a ticket for something you told me to do?

Policeman: Yes.  You should have known better than to follow an order from your government.

THE
END

And then it goes to court and the ticket gets thrown out.

THE
END

     Which is groovy for the driver who had to waste time & money fighting the ticket.

Which could be applied to any case where a defendant is eventually found innocent...

And it's not like these are poor drivers. They're multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations with hundreds of lawyers.

     & which should be applied to any case where a defendent was found innocent after being charged frivolously.

     Nevertheless, even though the corporations are plenty rich, it kind of sucks that they have to waste time dealing with something that happened through no fault of their own. Per the president's example of a driver being punished for following the government's instructions.

So if we pay the corporations' court costs in the event that they're found innocent would you support?

If that's Moderates problem than he could just issue an executive order to that effect.