Bowman Acts: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 24:
Equally as controversial is the following article - ''Article Twenty-Six'', which provides the exact same protocols as ''Article Twenty-Five'', but towards non-powered citizens of signatory nations and citizens of non-signatory nations who are seen as being a direct threat to international security through the overt threat of revealing information covered by the ''Acts''. As with ''Article Twenty-Five'', ''Article Twenty-Six'' provides incarceration and containment protocols, as well as means of nullifying that citizen's means of legal recourse, until such time as that citizen is not seen as a danger to the state or to him/herself. ''Article Twenty-Seven'' provides blanket coverage and language as voiced in the previous two articles, but in relation to any and all beings that are not covered by the previous articles.
There are several articles in the Bowman Acts that relate specifically to military applications of metahuman assets by signatory countries. One of the most far-reaching of these is Article Twenty-Eight of the 1983 Bowman act, which lays down specific guidelines for what are termed as '' 'bright operations' '' (overt military operations that involve the usage of metahuman-oriented assets as opposed to covert military operations, or '' 'black ops' '' ) and stipulations that such usage of ''bright ops'' must be limited to Class Two metahumans or lower in active combat during military operations (except in case of a declared war).
''Article Twenty-Seven'' of the 1985 Bowman Act is the specific and intended equivalent to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, but expanded to all signatory nations. Like Article One of the 1982 Bowman Act, it has caused much debate in legislative circles and in the media of many countries.
| |||