3rd Clark of the 46th Cosa - RZ7

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I will be voting No on this measure- for multiple reasons. I believe it is technically flawed, and I have personal reservations concerning the Bill.

First, and foremost - what was presented on the Clark was NOT the Bill debated in the Hopper. According to the OrgLaw, Article IX: The Secretary of State, the Hopper, and the Clark, Section 6. :

"The Secretary of State may, however, refuse to accept the bill if he finds that the bill is so substantially different from its original form as a legislative proposal that it constitutes asignificantly different proposal. Upon such a finding, the bill is automatically returned to "The Hopper."

This is the significant difference between the Hoppered bill and the Clarked Bill.

(Hoppered) MOREOVER the nation asks our gracious King John I to consider granting to Edward Snowden a peerage for his outstanding service to humanity and for his courage to step forward and perilling (sic) his life for his cause.

Was changed to:

(Clarked ) MOREOVER the nation asks the Ziu and the Senate to consider giving to Edward Snowden the Senatorial Medal of Honour, for his outstanding service to humanity and for his courage to step forward and peril his life for his cause.

Therefore , on this point alone, it should be rejected. Furthermore:

Second, this Bill doesn't fit into my definition (interpretation, if you prefer) of an actual Act. It doesn't establish an Office, it doesn't amend a previously passed law, it isn't a Budget,it doesn't create a new procedure or policy, and it doesn't address a current procedure or policy. It is also unenforceable.

Third, this is more on the level of a "Prime Dictate", or "Sense of the Ziu". It's expressing a political belief, not redressing an action or creating a law to protect the citizens of our Kingdom.

Fourth, it is (now) asking for the Senate to take an unprecedented action of awarding the the Highest Honour the Senate can bestow on a non-citizen, " for meritorious or honourable service to State or Nation". I sincerely doubt if Mr Snowden even knows that we exist, much less intentionally performed his actions for the betterment of the Kingdom. Mr Snowden has not met the criteria for the Award.

Finally - on a personal level - Mr. Snowden is a criminal. I don't approve of honoring a thief, a traitor, a liar, and a person that fled the country of his transgression, instead of defending his criminal actions.


For these reasons ( or, at least the first 4 reasons), I will vote "No", and ask my fellow Senators to also Vote "No".

Thank you for your time.

I yield the floor for discussion.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

While I personally hold Edward Snowden in high regard, and believe that his actions were not only heroic, but patriotic, I share the Senator from M-M's concern regarding asking the Senate to bestow it's highest honor on a non-citizen. (I also had reservations about asking King John to bestow a peerage on a non-citizen, especially one whose controversial actions are seen by some as criminal.)

If the sponsor of the bill wished to perhaps write a "Sense of the Ziu" resolution thanking Mr. Snowden for his actions, I would probably be inclined to cosponsor. I would perhaps recommend that the resolution be written in a way that condemned the American NSA for its illegal wiretapping of practically every nation in the world, and recognized Snowden in a "WHERAS", rather than having the entire Ziu express the sense that he is a hero. I may believe strongly that he is, but others also have strong negative feelings regarding his actions. Hopefully we can all generally agree, though, that the NSA went too far in the programs it ran or oversaw.

However, at this time, recognizing concerns from my colleagues in both the Cosa and the Senäts, as well as my own concerns, I must vote Contra on RZ7 unless the citizens of my province explicitly request otherwise.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Estimat Mençéi, one man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter. I have no love for the United States' apparatus of spying and secrecy. Morality, even political morality, does not depend on whether one approves of the goals or of the target.

But this strong reaction is exactly one of the reasons why I abstain on this issue. It's one thing to have hard, bruising political fights in Talossa about Talossan issues that effect Talossans. But this kind of thing is purely symbolic and is thus a purely symbolic way of starting a fight. I would prefer if this proposal had been taken to the Seneschál for a PD.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Apr 3, 2014 15:49:20 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Estimat Mençéi, one man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter. I have no love for the United States' apparatus of spying and secrecy. Morality, even political morality, does not depend on whether one approves of the goals or of the target.

But this strong reaction is exactly one of the reasons why I abstain on this issue. It's one thing to have hard, bruising political fights in Talossa about Talossan issues that effect Talossans. But this kind of thing is purely symbolic and is thus a purely symbolic way of starting a fight. I would prefer if this proposal had been taken to the Seneschál for a PD.

And I agree with you - it should have been a PD - there is too much emotion on both sides of this issue. My perspective comes from being a US Army Veteran, and someone who took many of the same Oaths as Mr. Snowden. I too had a High Security clearance at one time. This is why my comments were as strident as I wrote them. I think that in retrospect - had the conversation in the Hopper been more than 1 day and 13 comments long. I believe this was rushed, and the Author didn't take into account how this might be a flash point for some of his fellow Citizens.

Thank you for your comments!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

If I were to quibble, I would point out I'm sure General George Washington once took an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King of Great Britain (as General Erwin Rommel did to Adolf Hitler), but there are times when one must betray one's government, laws or sworn word to serve one's country or a higher cause. Reasonable people may disagree on whether Mr Snowden has done such a thing.

But anyway, as you say, hasty law is bad law, and hasty law pushed through before a broad consensus is attempted is even worse law.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Apr 3, 2014 18:18:36 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

If I were to quibble, I would point out I'm sure General George Washington once took an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King of Great Britain (as General Erwin Rommel did to Adolf Hitler), but there are times when one must betray one's government, laws or sworn word to serve one's country or a higher cause. Reasonable people may disagree on whether Mr Snowden has done such a thing.

But anyway, as you say, hasty law is bad law, and hasty law pushed through before a broad consensus is attempted is even worse law.

And this would have been the very type of conversation we should have had before this Clark. If nothing else, perhaps the rhetoric from both sides could have been tempered with time.