[DRAFT] Repeal GAR#18 "The Prisoners of War Accord"

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Repeal "The Prisoners of War Accord"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #18 | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

The World Assembly,

Commending the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #18 "The Prisoners of War Accord" to protect the rights of those captured or otherwise detained due to armed conflict,

Believing those captured or otherwise detained due to armed conflict deserve protections from indignities,

Concerned however General Assembly Resolution #18 contains several flaws that necessitate this repeal,

Bemoaning 5(b) which states "Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW", whilst failing to account for the sometimes large technological differences between opposing nations thus requiring the detaining nation to spend exorbitant amounts of resources developing the same technology to supply detained combatants with replacement clothing: also concerned detaining nations may not mark replacement uniforms with any identifying markers to distinguish detained combatants,

Concerned 5(c) states "Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired", possibly allowing the the release of highly sensitive information to detained combatants home nations revealing locations of sensitive targets, no matter how much censorship applied to said information,

Concerned clause 6(b) which states "PoWs may be questioned to establish their name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commissioning), and pertinent medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by PoWs" may be interpreted as preventing the questioning of members of a detained military force who may be suspected of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity, thus preventing those detained from being prosecuted for such offences as permitted by World Assembly legislation,

Unsure why clause 6(c) states uncommissioned members of a detained military force may be used as laborers by a detaining nations, yet commissioned members are exempt, thus creating and placing an undue and unfair burden upon uncommissioned members of a detained military force,

Disappointed at the lack of flow, grammatical inconsistency, and lack of punctuation that makes this resolution unfitting of a World Assembly resolution,

Sincerely hoping The World Assembly passes new, more comprehensive legislation on the matter of detained military forces that adequately addresses the concerns brought forth in this repeal,

Hereby repeals GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 18 "The Prisoners of War Accord".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Bemoaning 5(b) which states "Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW", whilst failing to account for the sometimes large technological differences between opposing nations thus requiring the detaining nation to spend exorbitant amounts of resources developing the same technology to supply detained combatants with replacement clothing: also concerned detaining nations may not mark replacement uniforms with any identifying markers to distinguish detained combatants,

I really don't see how the phrase "reasonably resemble" can be stretched to require nations that have somehow managed to capture combat exoskeleton-equipped troops by using their muskets and horse cavalry, to "develop[] the same technology" just to fulfill this requirement. Surely every conceivable military force uses fatigues or some equivalent simple cloth (fur, leather, etc.) uniform that can be mimicked with not too much effort. This can't be a huge point in favor of repeal.

Concerned 5(c) states "Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired", possibly allowing the the release of highly sensitive information to detained combatants home nations revealing locations of sensitive targets, no matter how much censorship applied to said information,

This is just absurd. The only uncensorable thing in such a letter would be the method of contact itself, which can easily be completely divorced from any physical locale or specified postal code.

Disappointed at the lack of flow, grammatical inconsistency, and lack of punctuation that makes this resolution unfitting of a World Assembly resolution,

No comment.

Suffice to say, this repeal argument is not without merit; but these particular points are. Do you intend to craft a replacement of any sort?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Do you intend to craft a replacement of any sort?

I was not planning on it myself, but would welcome and help fine tune a replacement draft if someone else is up for it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Canada is the new Douria. Just wants to repeal everything. It is wholly irresponsible to try to repeal this without a viable replacement already in the works. Plus, your argument sucks.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Canada is the new Douria. Just wants to repeal everything. It is wholly irresponsible to try to repeal this without a viable replacement already in the works. Plus, your argument sucks.

Then write a replacement.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Who's to say you won't try to repeal it as well, on similarly specious grounds?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Who's to say you won't try to repeal it as well, on similarly specious grounds?

If you write it, it is probably going to make sense when read, and won't be full of errors that make it an eyesore. The fact that I clearly stated, I would welcome a replacement, and even help with it should have been your first clue.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Leaving your terrible arguments aside, I do not support a repeal of the POW Accord at all, so I have no interest in writing a replacement. TDSR, on the other hand, has discussed wanting to replace POWA with two or three resolutions on detainee treatment. If such a project were to come forth and pick up steam, it would help actualize the only possible scenario in which I could support a repeal. But still, not this one.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Who's to say you won't try to repeal it as well, on similarly specious grounds?

If you write it, it is probably going to make sense when read, and won't be full of errors that make it an eyesore.

OOC: Cobdenian English is an acquired taste to be sure, but are there any "errors" of that nature that actually harm the resolution? We all giggled about the Maritime Neutrality Co(n)vention being misspelled, but that elision in the title didn't really make any difference to the substantive portion. Similarly with this: Cob always was a bit spotty with his spelling and punctuation and such, and this was his first(?) written post-Ausserland to "pencil whip" it into shape, but it doesn't matter, so far as I can see.

Leaving your terrible arguments aside, I do not support a repeal of the POW Accord at all, so I have no interest in writing a replacement. TDSR, on the other hand, has discussed wanting to replace POWA with two or three resolutions on detainee treatment. If such a project were to come forth and pick up steam, it would help actualize the only possible scenario in which I could support a repeal. But still, not this one.

No, my argument was that Mousebumples's interpretation of The Prisoners of War Accord didn't make any sense, but the mods ruled otherwise: the ruling I asked for two months ago still hasn't received a response, but until then I have to assume I'm wrong. Either way doesn't really affect the need for repeal, especially should that ruling ever arrive and Extradite & Prosecute go ahead.

But that's for another thread...

Then write a replacement.

Would you at least be willing to wait until someone writes a replacement before going ahead with the repeal?

[Bears Armed]

Leaving your terrible arguments aside, I do not support a repeal of the POW Accord at all, so I have no interest in writing a replacement. TDSR, on the other hand, has discussed wanting to replace POWA with two or three resolutions on detainee treatment. If such a project were to come forth and pick up steam, it would help actualize the only possible scenario in which I could support a repeal. But still, not this one.

We are in full agreement with these views.

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Brought this right to quorum, I see, without making any serious effort -- heck without any effort -- to draft or improve your shit argument.

Seriously, Canada, find a hobby or something.

[Solorni]

Balders vote for this currently being decided by our WA population currently. Is there any possibility of you working on a replacement Mr. Trudeau?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Balders vote for this currently being decided by our WA population currently. Is there any possibility of you working on a replacement Mr. Trudeau?

It is a possibility.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

He's lying.

Do you intend to craft a replacement of any sort?

I was not planning on it myself...

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

He's lying.

I was not planning on it myself...

I wasn't. That still does not preclude the possibility that I may consider it, now does it?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well, I certainly hope he is lying, because an actual resolution on this topic by him would undoubtedly be shit.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Well, I certainly hope he is lying, because an actual resolution on this topic by him would undoubtedly be shit.

And why do you say that?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

So it has been brought to my attention that a "mod vote" on this is in progress. It sure would have been nice if one of those mods had taken three precious seconds out of their busy lives to make that known here.

[Defwa]

I never thought I'd agree so much with OMGTKK. The Democratic Socialist Assembly is voting early to maximize our impact, intending to vote against this immediately as soon as it comes to vote.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I never thought I'd agree so much with OMGTKK. The Democratic Socialist Assembly is voting early to maximize our impact, intending to vote against this immediately as soon as it comes to vote.

You certainly are making the most of that delegacy aren't you?

[Kaboomlandia]

I never thought I'd agree so much with OMGTKK. The Democratic Socialist Assembly is voting early to maximize our impact, intending to vote against this immediately as soon as it comes to vote.

You certainly are making the most of that delegacy aren't you?

Defeat has every right to vote against it.

[The Miskatonic Valley]

Canada is the new Douria. Just wants to repeal everything. It is wholly irresponsible to try to repeal this without a viable replacement already in the works. Plus, your argument sucks.

OOC: Once again, I find myself in agreement with OMGTKK -- in part, at least. If repealed, this piece of legislation should be replaced, with something that doesn't contradict itself or is just plain inane. However, I also believe that the onus is not on the one proposing the repeal to replace the resolution in question. Bad law is bad law and should be repealed.

[Defwa]

I never thought I'd agree so much with OMGTKK. The Democratic Socialist Assembly is voting early to maximize our impact, intending to vote against this immediately as soon as it comes to vote.

You certainly are making the most of that delegacy aren't you?

OOC Doing my best. The DSA has a sizeable vote that hasn't been properly exercised in the past. Fear us!

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

You certainly are making the most of that delegacy aren't you?

OOC Doing my best. The DSA has a sizeable vote that hasn't been properly exercised in the past. Fear us!

I was a member for a long time, and still am. I am not really all that worried.

You certainly are making the most of that delegacy aren't you?

Defeat has every right to vote against it.

Who? I have never heard of a delegate named "Defeat". That almost seems like an attack on one of my esteemed allies.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I never thought I'd agree so much with OMGTKK. The Democratic Socialist Assembly is voting early to maximize our impact, intending to vote against this immediately as soon as it comes to vote.

You oughtn't be single-handed. Mousey please stomp this.