[PASSED] Protect War Correspondents

[Dizyntk]

"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."

Keep in mind that correspondants are not military trained and are incapable of providing the same protection and saftey for themselves as a trained soldier could

"Then I would suggest that they avoid areas and situations that could get them killed. It is no different if you or I waltzed up to the front lines of a battle. If you think that we would be afforded special protection, then I suggest that you think a little harder."

[Connopolis]

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,

"While they may, perhaps, be beneficial, they are not deserving of any special protection. Their job, like that of the soldiers themselves, is a perilous one. If they do not know this, perhaps they need a new occupation."

War correspondents and soldiers are not similar. The former is not prepared, nor equipped for combat, while the latter is a trained military personnel. There is quite a distinct difference.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

Keep in mind that correspondants are not military trained and are incapable of providing the same protection and saftey for themselves as a trained soldier could

"Then I would suggest that they avoid areas and situations that could get them killed. It is no different if you or I waltzed up to the front lines of a battle. If you think that we would be afforded special protection, then I suggest that you think a little harder."

John Smith, the everyday civilian, has no purpose to be in a conflict zone. War Correspondents on the other hand...

Yours,

[Connopolis]

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,

Your proposal's definition of War Correspondent could mean any civilian giving information. You are aware of this, yes?

Duly noted - I'll change that immediately.

[Dizyntk]

"Then I would suggest that they avoid areas and situations that could get them killed. It is no different if you or I waltzed up to the front lines of a battle. If you think that we would be afforded special protection, then I suggest that you think a little harder."

John Smith, the everyday civilian, has no purpose to be in a conflict zone. War Correspondents on the other hand...

Yours,

"I would argue that, as far as the soldiers are concerned, there is NO difference between a reporter and John Smith. Niether has any business being on the front lines. If they choose to be there, however, they are taking the same risks."

[Dizyntk]

"As another observation, I do not think this act protects anybody. Clause 4 states,

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

"As this reads, any correspondent who has not been verified by BOTH sides is in danger from at least one. If said correspondent is seen on the battlefield and has not been verified by my nation (and how, may I ask, do soldiers verify this in the heat of combat?), then he or she is fair game, I assume."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Why hasn't the draft been amended with this?

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.

We can't help but feel worried by the continued ambiguity present in the words 'inclusive of divulging false information' as that should always be common practice when speaking to reporters.

We believe Mr. John Smith, Civilian, should not be targeted any more than Mr. Joe Bloggs or Mr. John Doe, reporters.

Edit: Oops, forgot to mention: We support this proposal.

[Dizyntk]

We believe Mr. John Smith, Civilian, should not be targeted any more than Mr. Joe Bloggs or Mr. John Doe, reporters.

"I agree, but they should not be on the front lines of a battlefield in the first place. The civilians may be there by happenstance. The battle breaking out in or near their town or place of residence, hence we have rules regarding them. War correspondents, on the other hand, choose to be on the front lines. I do not see why they should have any special protections. They do not have to be there after all."

[Separatist Peoples]

We agree with the Dizyntk delegation. Individuals foolish enough to enter a war zone without the proper equipment and training deserve what is coming to them. Its Darwinism at its best. They have no business being where they are. If they would like to report on this war at a distance, away from combat and away from my bases, since foreign correspondents are not allowed anywhere on or near C.D.S.P. operational territory, then they are welcome to it. If they are embedded into a unit through proper military channels, that's great. Otherwise, they are a serious tactical liability to troops operating in a combat zone.

One stupid reporter in the wrong place, doing something he or she shouldn't be doing can give away the position of an entire platoon of soldiers an wipe em out. Or put themselves in a situation where we would be required to protect them. Any expenditure of Confederate lives on behalf of a gung-ho foreigner, especially something as obnoxious as a war correspondent, is simply repugnant to me...

Deliberately targeting impartial civilians, yeah, that's bad. But these people do not deserve any more protection then anybody else in the same position. If they really wanted to be in combat so bad, they'd have joined the military.

[Connopolis]

We believe Mr. John Smith, Civilian, should not be targeted any more than Mr. Joe Bloggs or Mr. John Doe, reporters.

"I agree, but they should not be on the front lines of a battlefield in the first place. The civilians may be there by happenstance. The battle breaking out in or near their town or place of residence, hence we have rules regarding them. War correspondents, on the other hand, choose to be on the front lines. I do not see why they should have any special protections. They do not have to be there after all."

Ambassador, are you trying to convince me that a war correspondent doesn't belong near a conflict area? Their job is physically impossible without being near conflict. You can't compare a civilian with a war correspondent, simply because war correspondents belong in, or near conflict, while a civilian would try and avoid combat at all costs. War correspondents "choose" to be on the front line because their job necessitates it. A civilian is not paid to stay near conflict areas, and analyze the situation, while relaying information back to news agencies to inform their citizens. Citizens aren't capable of doing this themselves, which you seem to be neglecting; by necessity, it's integral that they remain protected, as it's beneficial to all parties, with little, to no ramifications. AS SP noted, they're tactical assets. Simply killing them benefits none of the belligerents.

Yours,

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador, are you trying to convince me that a war correspondent doesn't belong near a conflict area? Their job is physically impossible without being near conflict. You can't compare a civilian with a war correspondent, simply because war correspondents belong in, or near conflict, while a civilian would try and avoid combat at all costs. War correspondents "choose" to be on the front line because their job necessitates it. A civilian is not paid to stay near conflict areas, and analyze the situation, while relaying information back to news agencies to inform their citizens. Citizens aren't capable of doing this themselves, which you seem to be neglecting; by necessity, it's integral that they remain protected, as it's beneficial to all parties, with little, to no ramifications. AS SP noted, they're tactical assets. Simply killing them benefits none of the belligerents.

Yours,

Actually, their use as tactical assets is limited when they aren't using it as a cover for intelligence gathering. Which is something the C.D.S.P. has been known to do.

Also, war correspondents are just reporters in a warzone: essentially the same thing as your average civilian. They posses no extra skills, they are just reporters. And they get in the way. Just because it is their job to get in our way hardly means that we ought to protect them in the execution of doing something incredibly foolish...

You are trying to argue, it seems, that war correspondents are somehow more capable then your average civilian, and therefore more deserving of protection...Honestly, soldiers in the C.D.S.P. have been known to shoot reporters that enter restricted zones and refuse to obey the command to leave. It actually keeps foreign reporters away rather nicely.

[Connopolis]

Ambassador, are you trying to convince me that a war correspondent doesn't belong near a conflict area? Their job is physically impossible without being near conflict. You can't compare a civilian with a war correspondent, simply because war correspondents belong in, or near conflict, while a civilian would try and avoid combat at all costs. War correspondents "choose" to be on the front line because their job necessitates it. A civilian is not paid to stay near conflict areas, and analyze the situation, while relaying information back to news agencies to inform their citizens. Citizens aren't capable of doing this themselves, which you seem to be neglecting; by necessity, it's integral that they remain protected, as it's beneficial to all parties, with little, to no ramifications. AS SP noted, they're tactical assets. Simply killing them benefits none of the belligerents.

Yours,

Actually, their use as tactical assets is limited when they aren't using it as a cover for intelligence gathering. Which is something the C.D.S.P. has been known to do.

Also, war correspondents are just reporters in a warzone: essentially the same thing as your average civilian. They posses no extra skills, they are just reporters. And they get in the way. Just because it is their job to get in our way hardly means that we ought to protect them in the execution of doing something incredibly foolish...

You are trying to argue, it seems, that war correspondents are somehow more capable then your average civilian, and therefore more deserving of protection...Honestly, soldiers in the C.D.S.P. have been known to shoot reporters that enter restricted zones and refuse to obey the command to leave. It actually keeps foreign reporters away rather nicely.

Ambassador, that's nonsensical. A war correspondent might annoy soldiers - that is common knowledge. However, it's hyperbolic to say that they hinder war efforts in any significant way, as you seem to believe. Simply repeating, over, and over that this is "Darwinism" expresses your utter disregard for sapient life. They're not "foolish", they're employed to obtain information. If you don't like war correspondents, I advise you make use of this clause:

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

OOC: No snarkness intended:

Have you ever watched a RL war correspondent? I've never heard of Anderson Cooper being hunted down by militants for obstructing war efforts. There's a reason that war correspondents, such as Anderson Cooper, aren't killed in real life, and that's because they don't affect the course of war. All they do is relay basic information about the conflict back to their home nation.

[Separatist Peoples]

Actually, their use as tactical assets is limited when they aren't using it as a cover for intelligence gathering. Which is something the C.D.S.P. has been known to do.

Also, war correspondents are just reporters in a warzone: essentially the same thing as your average civilian. They posses no extra skills, they are just reporters. And they get in the way. Just because it is their job to get in our way hardly means that we ought to protect them in the execution of doing something incredibly foolish...

You are trying to argue, it seems, that war correspondents are somehow more capable then your average civilian, and therefore more deserving of protection...Honestly, soldiers in the C.D.S.P. have been known to shoot reporters that enter restricted zones and refuse to obey the command to leave. It actually keeps foreign reporters away rather nicely.

Ambassador, that's nonsensical. A war correspondent might annoy soldiers - that is common knowledge. However, it's hyperbolic to say that they hinder war efforts in any significant way, as you seem to believe. Simply repeating, over, and over that this is "Darwinism" expresses your utter disregard for sapient life. They're not "foolish", they're employed to obtain information. If you don't like war correspondents, I advise you make use of this clause:

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

OOC: No snarkness intended:

Have you ever watched a RL war correspondent? I've never heard of Anderson Cooper being hunted down by militants for obstructing war efforts. There's a reason that war correspondents, such as Anderson Cooper, aren't killed in real life, and that's because they don't affect the course of war. All they do is relay basic information about the conflict back to their home nation.

I don't beleive they will hinder an entire war effort, I'm more worried about the troop-level tactics and how correspondents tend to screw those maneuvers up. A for social Darwinism, how is encouraging the presence of pure stupidity by protecting those who behave in a manner that would otherwise be removed from the gene pool a bad thing? If somebody is dumb enough to, say, walk into a warzone with no training, then I'd say we are well rid of those genes. Survival of the fittest.

OOC: You don't have a whole lot of experience with the military, do you? Soldiers tend to hate the correspondents because they don't know what they are doing and get in the way. Annoying soldiers is one thing. Certifiable risks to the platoon because they do not understand the concept of noise, movement, or light discipline is another. This is a serious concern, and a main reason why embedded correspondents are so rare in the military in real life.

[Connopolis]

Ambassador, that's nonsensical. A war correspondent might annoy soldiers - that is common knowledge. However, it's hyperbolic to say that they hinder war efforts in any significant way, as you seem to believe. Simply repeating, over, and over that this is "Darwinism" expresses your utter disregard for sapient life. They're not "foolish", they're employed to obtain information. If you don't like war correspondents, I advise you make use of this clause:

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

OOC: No snarkness intended:

Have you ever watched a RL war correspondent? I've never heard of Anderson Cooper being hunted down by militants for obstructing war efforts. There's a reason that war correspondents, such as Anderson Cooper, aren't killed in real life, and that's because they don't affect the course of war. All they do is relay basic information about the conflict back to their home nation.

I don't beleive they will hinder an entire war effort, I'm more worried about the troop-level tactics and how correspondents tend to screw those maneuvers up. A for social Darwinism, how is encouraging the presence of pure stupidity by protecting those who behave in a manner that would otherwise be removed from the gene pool a bad thing? If somebody is dumb enough to, say, walk into a warzone with no training, then I'd say we are well rid of those genes. Survival of the fittest.

OOC: You don't have a whole lot of experience with the military, do you? Soldiers tend to hate the correspondents because they don't know what they are doing and get in the way. Annoying soldiers is one thing. Certifiable risks to the platoon because they do not understand the concept of noise, movement, or light discipline is another. This is a serious concern, and a main reason why embedded correspondents are so rare in the military in real life.

OOC: That's simply unrealistic... Might I be so presumptuous as to ask about a real life occurrence in which a War Correspondent did anything that was detrimental to either party? Never. They very seldom interact with soldiers, and when they do, the soldier(s) accompany them voluntarily. If you've ever watched a war correspondent (which I'm not inclined to believe at this point), you'd realize that they're not normally accompanied by soldiers. They normally interview civilians in afflicted areas. I've never actually seen an active militant interviewed, which you claim to be a common occurrence. Again, no snarkness intended, but I advise you watch conflict-related news more often.

EDIT: I'm not even going to get into Social Darwinism...

Yours in apologizing for any snark,

[Connopolis]

I'm not sure if this was ready to be submitted, but unless anyone identifies a major concern, I'm advising the author to leave it up.

EDIT: There's a formatting/title error, so we'll be removing this. It will be resubmitted tonight.
Yours,

[Connopolis]

Protection of War Correspondents

Code: Select all

The General Assembly,

SADDENED, YET NEVERTHELESS IMPRESSED by the bravery of individuals who risk their life in order to supply citizens with generic information about multi-national conflict,

ACKNOWLEDGING that these individuals are unprotected, despite their commendable and selfless actions,

ABHORRED that militants may terminate this individuals with no negative ramifications, despite their beneficial nature towards all participating parties,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:

[list][*][i]War Correspondent[/i] as an employed individual that relays information in regards to multi-national conflict to a third party with the intent of making this information available to the public.[/list]

The World Assembly, therefore;

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of confiscating their equipment without justification, 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.

2) Third parties are forbidden from forcing reporters to go into volatile regions, specifically those in a prolonged state of conflict, against their will. Member-states are encouraged to implement additional safety protocol to ensure the well-being of the war correspondent.

3) Third parties must inform individuals about the contingent hazards of the occupation prior to their deployment; these private mechanisms are encouraged to compensate war correspondents in proportion to volatility of the region - war correspondents must be notified of their salary prior to their departure. Should the individual change their mind, they may not be subject to any form of punishment.

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

5) War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.

6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.

Co-authored by [nation=short]Connopolis[/nation]

I've also added this clause, to quell any concerns:

6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation; as are the home nation of the correspondent.

Yours,

[Dizyntk]

6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation; as are the home nation of the correspondent.

"If by "persecution" you mean that my soldiers may abandon said correspondent in enemy territory or kill him, whichever is more convenient, then I might agree with you."

[Antartica55]

6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation; as are the home nation of the correspondent.

"If by "persecution" you mean that my soldiers may abandon said correspondent in enemy territory or kill him, whichever is more convenient, then I might agree with you."

I would be okay with that

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"If by "persecution" you mean that my soldiers may abandon said correspondent in enemy territory or kill him, whichever is more convenient, then I might agree with you."

We think that's roughly what it says.

[Weed]

This appears to be the correct thread for the resolution at vote, no? If so:

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:

* War Correspondent as an employed individual that relays information in regards to multi-national conflict to a third party with the intent of making this information available to the public.

The above definition would include spies.

5) War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.

6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.

And these two protections only apply after the spy has aided one side. You cannot stop the spy from gathering information until he actually gives that information to your enemy, after that point he has lost his protection (which he no longer needs).

A painfully flawed resolution, IMO. Against.

[Antartica55]

This appears to be the correct thread for the resolution at vote, no? If so:

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:

* War Correspondent as an employed individual that relays information in regards to multi-national conflict to a third party with the intent of making this information available to the public.

The above definition would include spies.

5) War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.

6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.

And these two protections only apply after the spy has aided one side. You cannot stop the spy from gathering information until he actually gives that information to your enemy, after that point he has lost his protection (which he no longer needs).

A painfully flawed resolution, IMO. Against.

"And you think that said information gathered by a spy is going to be made availble to the public during a war!? Never would happen that would compromise any further espinonage operations and would lessen the respect of the nation carrying out said operations"

[Weed]

This appears to be the correct thread for the resolution at vote, no? If so:
The above definition would include spies.And these two protections only apply after the spy has aided one side. You cannot stop the spy from gathering information until he actually gives that information to your enemy, after that point he has lost his protection (which he no longer needs).

A painfully flawed resolution, IMO. Against.

"And you think that said information gathered by a spy is going to be made availble to the public during a war!? Never would happen that would compromise any further espinonage operations and would lessen the respect of the nation carrying out said operations"

There is no need to keep spies a secret anymore. This fundamentally changes the spy-game. All WA members are not allowed to take action against spies, so espionage can now be done by just any civilian. There is no need to protect the identity of spies if anyone can do it.

This resolution also fails to address the problem that in a war with non-WA members, their soldiers will be allowed to massacre as many war correspondents as possible while the WA member cannot return the attack.

Which also makes me realize this whole resolution can be avoided in modern warfare, as long as one of the nations in the coalition in non-WA they can be the coalition member in charge of destroying war correspondents. I suppose we'll all just have to find non-WA friends to deal with spies.

[Damanucus]

okay, just need a couple of things clarified before I vote:

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of confiscating their equipment without justification, 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.

(This part doesn't really need clarification; after reading the comments made by earlier contributors, I'm seeing this as avoiding, or at least reducing, a major problem before it appears.)

3) Third parties must inform individuals about the contingent hazards of the occupation prior to their deployment; these private mechanisms are encouraged to compensate war correspondents in proportion to volatility of the region - war correspondents must be notified of their salary prior to their departure. Should the individual change their mind, they may not be subject to any form of punishment.

Define "third party".

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

Okay, can you tell me why this clause is in here?

5) War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.

So I'm guessing they can aid any innocents, right? What would happen if a belligerent gives the impression of being an innocent? Is that one a debatable?

If you could please answer, that would be greatly appreciated.

Horgen Dush
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Paper Flowers]

And these two protections only apply after the spy has aided one side. You cannot stop the spy from gathering information until he actually gives that information to your enemy, after that point he has lost his protection (which he no longer needs).

Might I suggest that there are two provisions within the proposal that would allow a nation protection from spies and other such unwelcome individuals:

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of confiscating their equipment without justification, wounding the individual, or executing them without adequate reasoning.

Our government has already agreed that, should this proposal pass into law, reasonable suspicion or evidence of passing information to hostile parties, or passing information with the intent of specifically damaging our war efforts to be "adequate reason" to remove the correspondent.

Or, you could cut it off at the source:

4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

While we cannot control what happens in others territory, we shall not be accepting war correspondents into our territory, as such anyone found relaying information to third parties about our military shall automatically be considered a spy and treated accordingly.

[Wu Wei Shan]

While we cannot control what happens in others territory, we shall not be accepting war correspondents into our territory, as such anyone found relaying information to third parties about our military shall automatically be considered a spy and treated accordingly.

Agreed. Section 4 basically make this whole resolution worthless, over and above the fact that it is enforceable only in WA member states. Correspondents can simply be turned around at customs or area of occupation. In addition, is poorly written and does not befit this august body. Wu Wei Shan cannot approve it in its current state.