Advertisement
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:40 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:45 pm
Connopolis wrote:
Ambassador, if your logic was true, then might I ask the point of removing the clause? If divulging false information would have no negative ramification on either party, I can hardly see why anyone would find it as a tactical necessity. If it was truly imperative that nations utilize these tactics, there would have to be an advantage gained, and if those advantages are non-existent as you claim, the clause serves as a repercussion. The clause either affect both parties negatively, or has no effect on either party, aside from being a safety net; in either scenario, your logic is flawed.
OOC: I'll insult biased news networks all I like.
Yours in further insulting biased news agencies,
by Antartica55 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:49 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Additionally: If a nation is incapable of maintaining a semblance of order, or sifting the facts from the lies, even in a line of work that depends entirely on such a skill, then I can't imagine that the WA writing rules on the chalkboard about how "None of us should lie" as if we are in Kindergarten is going to help.
Misinformation is a certifiably useful form of warfare, not only to the enemy in an intelligence or counterintelligence form, but also when it comes to garnering political support in other theaters of the world. There is nothing wrong with informing the masses of observers that your military is going to do one thing, then do another entirely, because that is simply how Military Intelligence factions work. This clause comes dangerously close to abolishing that, as well as making a class of international criminals out of soldiers who simply misspoke, were not properly informed, or even have a standing order to lie about anything a reporter asks them.
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:52 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Connopolis wrote:
Ambassador, if your logic was true, then might I ask the point of removing the clause? If divulging false information would have no negative ramification on either party, I can hardly see why anyone would find it as a tactical necessity. If it was truly imperative that nations utilize these tactics, there would have to be an advantage gained, and if those advantages are non-existent as you claim, the clause serves as a repercussion. The clause either affect both parties negatively, or has no effect on either party, aside from being a safety net; in either scenario, your logic is flawed.
OOC: I'll insult biased news networks all I like.
Yours in further insulting biased news agencies,
Yes, why should we remove useless clauses from legislation? Clearly, if it has no purpose, it is more effort to simply remove them and wait for expensive issues later then it is to pay for all the issues such a practice would cause.
Misinformation is not useless, simply in the manner you argue for. Misinformation is a wonderful tool of Counterintelligence, but forcing all soldiers and militants to "tell the truth" in essence creates a class of international criminals that is just unnecessary.
Misinformation works wonders when you tell reporters that you have X amounts of troops in one area, when most of those troops are actually somewhere else, waiting to bite the enemy in the ass. Such tactics work on a daily basis. This is simply attempting to restrict one of the basic tenants of warfare: confuse and surprise the hell out of the other side.
OOC: If you dont like Fox, take it to General. This isn't the place for that kind of RL petty partisanship. Keep it to RP petty partisanship. Thats why I try to avoid General, I like my RP partisanship a lot better.
1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of:
- Divulging false information with the purpose of having the individual returning to their host nation,
- Wounding the individual,
- Executing them without adequate reasoning. Should a militant fail to comply, both the individual, and the host member-state of the individual shall be held accountable.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:53 pm
Antartica55 wrote:Well nobody ever said that a soldier HAS to awnser or even talk to a reporter a simple "I cannot awnser that question." would be enough
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:54 pm
Connopolis wrote:To a point, I understand your concern. How does this sound:1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of divulging false information with the purpose of having the individual returning to their host nation, wounding the individual, or executing them without adequate reasoning. Should a militant fail to comply, both the individual, and the host member-state of the individual shall be held accountable.
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:56 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Connopolis wrote:To a point, I understand your concern. How does this sound:1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of divulging false information with the purpose of having the individual returning to their host nation, wounding the individual, or executing them without adequate reasoning. Should a militant fail to comply, both the individual, and the host member-state of the individual shall be held accountable.
How exactly does the military have any clue if that individual is going to return to their nation of origin with such information? This still stifles the concept of misinformation and counterintelligence. So long as you mandate what the military can and cannot say to reporters, you have a serious security concern.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:58 pm
Connopolis wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
How exactly does the military have any clue if that individual is going to return to their nation of origin with such information? This still stifles the concept of misinformation and counterintelligence. So long as you mandate what the military can and cannot say to reporters, you have a serious security concern.
The wording is awkward; my apologies. The misinformation would regard the war correspondents personal safety; I'll make not of that, and revise the clause accordingly.
Yours,
by Antartica55 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:59 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Antartica55 wrote:Well nobody ever said that a soldier HAS to awnser or even talk to a reporter a simple "I cannot awnser that question." would be enough
There is no reason that he shouldn't be able to lie to the reporter. In fact, sometimes denying such an answer is just as incriminating to trained Intelligence personnel as giving it straight out. Being able to refer to a story that a standing order has placed is going to be a lot better for both the strategic command as well as the soldier himself.
There is an awful lot of concern as to how Antarcrica55 and Connopolis run their G-2 sectors if they insist on telling the truth to every inquisitive Tom, Jane, and Dick with a Correspondent helmet...
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:01 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Connopolis wrote:
The wording is awkward; my apologies. The misinformation would regard the war correspondents personal safety; I'll make not of that, and revise the clause accordingly.
Yours,
If it is in regard to the personal safety of the correspondent, then that isn't an issue. I suppose soldiers sending annoying reporters into minefields would be a problem...
Having said that, we still maintain that reporters deserve no more protection then soldiers do, and that is very little in an active war zone.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:04 pm
Connopolis wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
If it is in regard to the personal safety of the correspondent, then that isn't an issue. I suppose soldiers sending annoying reporters into minefields would be a problem...
Having said that, we still maintain that reporters deserve no more protection then soldiers do, and that is very little in an active war zone.
We will unfortunately have to disagree here. We prefer our citizens alive when they return home. You must bear in mind that their service is beneficial to the host nation.
Yours,
by Sanctaria » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:05 pm
by Antartica55 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:11 pm
Sanctaria wrote:The basic problem I have with this proposal is why should new reporters be put before our soldiers, diplomats, aid agency workers etc. Why do they deserve protection via international law?
I understand they provide an invaluable service, but so do our diplomats and our aid agency workers that we send abroad. That's not to mention that there may be expatriates or holidaymakers stranded in a conflict that pops out of nowhere.
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:15 pm
Sanctaria wrote:The basic problem I have with this proposal is why should new reporters be put before our soldiers, diplomats, aid agency workers etc. Why do they deserve protection via international law?
I understand they provide an invaluable service, but so do our diplomats and our aid agency workers that we send abroad. That's not to mention that there may be expatriates or holidaymakers stranded in a conflict that pops out of nowhere.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:18 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Connopolis wrote:
We will unfortunately have to disagree here. We prefer our citizens alive when they return home. You must bear in mind that their service is beneficial to the host nation.
Yours,
That their service is useful is debatable. Many soldiers find them to be little more then a nuisance.
Out of curiosity, how does this proposal affect military officials denying correspondants access to operational territory? What is stopping the military from giving the boot to all correspondents that come too close to their vehicles/soldiers/ bases?
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Sanctaria » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:19 pm
Antartica55 wrote:Sanctaria wrote:The basic problem I have with this proposal is why should new reporters be put before our soldiers, diplomats, aid agency workers etc. Why do they deserve protection via international law?
I understand they provide an invaluable service, but so do our diplomats and our aid agency workers that we send abroad. That's not to mention that there may be expatriates or holidaymakers stranded in a conflict that pops out of nowhere.
Very true but Diplomats are usally protected by the sending nations and Aid workers are already protected under On Humanitarian Aid. As for holidaymakers it is the assumed reponsibility of thier home nation to evacuate them (nothing says they have to.) News reporters on the other hand are not sent in by thier home nations but by News Agencys
Connopolis wrote:Sanctaria wrote:The basic problem I have with this proposal is why should new reporters be put before our soldiers, diplomats, aid agency workers etc. Why do they deserve protection via international law?
I understand they provide an invaluable service, but so do our diplomats and our aid agency workers that we send abroad. That's not to mention that there may be expatriates or holidaymakers stranded in a conflict that pops out of nowhere.
Ironically, aid agency workers do have protection. I actually authored the legislation that protected them. Diplomats are also protected, if I recall correctly.
Yours,
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:22 pm
Sanctaria wrote:Antartica55 wrote:
Very true but Diplomats are usally protected by the sending nations and Aid workers are already protected under On Humanitarian Aid. As for holidaymakers it is the assumed reponsibility of thier home nation to evacuate them (nothing says they have to.) News reporters on the other hand are not sent in by thier home nations but by News AgencysConnopolis wrote:
Ironically, aid agency workers do have protection. I actually authored the legislation that protected them. Diplomats are also protected, if I recall correctly.
Yours,
There was an "etc." there if I recall correctly. My point was why should be giving protections for individual occupations.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Dizyntk » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:42 pm
OOC: I'll insult biased news networks all I like.
by Dizyntk » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:46 pm
Ironically, aid agency workers do have protection
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:50 pm
Dizyntk wrote:Ironically, aid agency workers do have protection
"Not if they are in an active war zone, Dr. Forshaw, which this proposal seems to assume the reporters in question are in."
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Dizyntk » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:56 pm
FURTHER PROHIBITS humanitarian aid workers from intentionally entering conflict zones,
by Connopolis » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:02 pm
Dizyntk wrote:"I remember the resolution clearly, Dr. Forshaw. One of it's actionable clauses states,FURTHER PROHIBITS humanitarian aid workers from intentionally entering conflict zones,
"Nowhere in this proposal does it state that correspondents must stay out of active conflict zones. Therefore it assumes that they are, in fact, in said zones. This only makes sense given the nature of their jobs. That being the case, they deserve no more protections than any other person in that situation."
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Antartica55 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:06 pm
Dizyntk wrote:"I remember the resolution clearly, Dr. Forshaw. One of it's actionable clauses states,FURTHER PROHIBITS humanitarian aid workers from intentionally entering conflict zones,
"Nowhere in this proposal does it state that correspondents must stay out of active conflict zones. Therefore it assumes that they are, in fact, in said zones. This only makes sense given the nature of their jobs. That being the case, they deserve no more protections than any other person in that situation."
by Dizyntk » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:07 pm
Connopolis wrote:Their job would be redundant if they couldn't enter conflict zones. The whole point of this resolution is to ensure their safety while in the conflict zone.
Bear in mind the benefits of their occupation, especially in taking into consideration the fact that civilians could not attain this information without their assistance, and it doesn't necessary help when they're being killed off.
Yours,
by Sanctaria » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:08 pm
Connopolis wrote:Dizyntk wrote:"I remember the resolution clearly, Dr. Forshaw. One of it's actionable clauses states,
"Nowhere in this proposal does it state that correspondents must stay out of active conflict zones. Therefore it assumes that they are, in fact, in said zones. This only makes sense given the nature of their jobs. That being the case, they deserve no more protections than any other person in that situation."
Their job would be redundant if they couldn't enter conflict zones. The whole point of this resolution is to ensure their safety while in the conflict zone.
Bear in mind the benefits of their occupation, especially in taking into consideration the fact that civilians could not attain this information without their assistance, and it doesn't necessary help when they're being killed off.
Yours,
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement