[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think I like it since it would mean I can't go do what I wish to prisoners...

"This proposal has no impact on how your nation treats prisoners. A different resolution entirely deals with that, and your implication suggests noncompliance with at least two active resolutions...However, I must point out that enemy combatants who know your nations forces will abuse or summarily execute them upon capture will likely fight to the death, having no other options available. This will cause extremely unnecessary casualties to your own forces, ambassador, something that can be avoided by simply treating prisoners properly."

[McMasterdonia]

I like this proposal and it will have my support.

[Hakio]

Sia Hedishi drinks coffee coming off of her oppressive hangover. She shifts through papers and reads over the fourth draft of Rules of Surrender. "It's wonderful," She says handing it to her assistant with her free hand holding her head with the other. "Make copies for our League of Liberty to do preemptive review and reading before it's time for them to debate and vote on it."

Sia Hedishi packs up her things haphazardly and pours the coffee into the plant pot.

[The United Republic of Freiheit]

This proposal has my full support and I shall campaign heavily in its favor within my region when it comes up to vote.

[Infinite Freedom]

Very nice. I will ask my regions delegate and WA members to support this.

[Separatist Peoples]

Very nice. I will ask my regions delegate and WA members to support this.

OOC: Don't puppetwank in my thread.

[Benian Republic]

I don't think I like it since it would mean I can't go do what I wish to prisoners...

"This proposal has no impact on how your nation treats prisoners. A different resolution entirely deals with that, and your implication suggests noncompliance with at least two active resolutions...However, I must point out that enemy combatants who know your nations forces will abuse or summarily execute them upon capture will likely fight to the death, having no other options available. This will cause extremely unnecessary casualties to your own forces, ambassador, something that can be avoided by simply treating prisoners properly."

That gives respect to those who don't deserve them

[England-Ireland]

I like it I will support this bill

[Separatist Peoples]

"This proposal has no impact on how your nation treats prisoners. A different resolution entirely deals with that, and your implication suggests noncompliance with at least two active resolutions...However, I must point out that enemy combatants who know your nations forces will abuse or summarily execute them upon capture will likely fight to the death, having no other options available. This will cause extremely unnecessary casualties to your own forces, ambassador, something that can be avoided by simply treating prisoners properly."

That gives respect to those who don't deserve them

"It keeps your soldiers alive, for one. Instead of fighting to the death, enemy combatants will be willing to surrender, knowing you have to treat them properly. Again, this has absolutely no bearing on how you treat POWs, as they are already covered by previous legislation. That said, I believe that WA members should be held to a higher standard when it comes to human rights, thus these protections."

[England-Ireland]

i will vote for it

[Separatist Peoples]

"So, it's been floated by the DSR at a few points in the debate, but how do the esteemed ambassadors of this august Assembly feel about the inclusion of a clause banning blanket declarations of No Quarter/Take No Prisoners and perhaps even a clause banning the refusal to take as POWs those clearly incapable of resisting, such as the wounded? This way, the bill can cover both large-scale capitulation and battlefield treatment of captures.

"I realize, in the extremely hawkish environment of the WA, such additions will likely be unpopular. I'd like to hear opinions on the effect on the viability of the proposal before aaa submitting actual text for peer attack review."

[Old Hope]

"So, it's been floated by the DSR at a few points in the debate, but how do the esteemed ambassadors of this august Assembly feel about the inclusion of a clause banning blanket declarations of No Quarter/Take No Prisoners and perhaps even a clause banning the refusal to take as POWs those clearly incapable of resisting, such as the wounded? This way, the bill can cover both large-scale capitulation and battlefield treatment of captures.

"I realize, in the extremely hawkish environment of the WA, such additions will likely be unpopular. I'd like to hear opinions on the effect on the viability of the proposal before aaa submitting actual text for peer attack review."

My nation agrees on such clauses... with some exceptions. If we are able to do that, all is fine. If our army has not enough supplies left, we don't want to have to abide a resolution that forces us to give our wounded enemies some help only resulting in the loss of both armies.
If a part of our army is being threatened by a superior advancing enemy army, we don't want to be forced to stay where we are just to help some enemies who would get rescued anyways.

[Lexicor]

"We the luscious lemon lovers of Lexicor have no standing army, so we will abstain from voting on any form of this proposal."

- Remy Junket
Resident Lemon Squeezer [OOC: He Got Promoted! ]
Lexicorian WA Office, Left of the Lemonade Stand

[Louisistan]

"It has been a while, since we have checked in on this draft. As it currently stands, the Confederacy will support this."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: bump.

When I have more time and a not iPhone, I'll post the newest draft with the new clause. Until then, the rest of this shouldn't change.

[England-Ireland]

I will support

[Separatist Peoples]

I will support

"You've mentioned it."

[England-Ireland]

I will support

"You've mentioned it."

Oh

[Separatist Peoples]

"You've mentioned it."

Oh

"Three times, in fact. I appreciate the enthusiastic support, though one enthusiastic declaration is likely sufficient, my friend."

[Lexicor]

"After discussion with our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the WA Office will now vote for."

OOC: I finally got somewhat of a character RP going now

[Nucoclan]

I will support.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Added a clause about those combatants found hors de combat. Its as close to a ban on "No Quarter" orders as I think I can effectively pass without seriously impeding a unit's ability to avoid strategically overburdening itself. Comments are welcome."

[Ragnarokee]

You have my support! I like it!

[Separatist Peoples]

My nation agrees on such clauses... with some exceptions. If we are able to do that, all is fine. If our army has not enough supplies left, we don't want to have to abide a resolution that forces us to give our wounded enemies some help only resulting in the loss of both armies.
If a part of our army is being threatened by a superior advancing enemy army, we don't want to be forced to stay where we are just to help some enemies who would get rescued anyways.

"My apologies for missing this earlier, ambassador. Nothing in this requires you accept the surrender of a party, even those hors de combat, simply that you extend certain rights. If you refuse to accept surrender of wounded soldiers, your troops may either withdraw or allow them to withdraw. You simply can't kill them out of hand."

[Wrapper]

Nothing in this requires you accept the surrender of a party

Perhaps a CLARIFIES clause at the end stating just that? You do know that many ambassadors who do not take part in these debates do not have our, hmmm, level of reading comprehension, let's say, and just skim through these proposals prior to casting their votes. Yes?