[PASSED] Protect War Correspondents

[Antartica55]

RECOGNIZES: That during war time news reporters and crews go into warzones to report from the frontlines.

DEFINES: 1. A News Reporter: As anyone/thing that reports news to an agency for the purpose of delivering the information via television, radio or text

2. Warzone as An area of land in which multiple warring nations and/or factions do battle.

PROHIBITES: 1. The targeting inclusive of capturing and executing of news reporters and thier crews which in order to slow the transfer of information to the enemy's general population

2. Any news agency from forcing reporters to go into warzones against thier will, with a threat of job loss or any other punishment

ESTABLISHES: The IWNRA (International Wartime News Reporting Administartion) that will oversee the protection and transport of news reporters, crews and equipment. Mercanaries will be hired from a neutral nation to prevent futher conflict.

[Post-Apocaliptia]

RECOGNIZES: That during war time news reporters and crews go into warzones to report from the frontlines.

DEFINES: 1. A News Reporter: As anyone/thing that reports news to an agency for the purpose of delivering the information via television, radio or text

2. An area of land in which multiple warring nations and/or factions do battle.
Was that meant to be a definition of something? Because it just looks out of place.

BANS: 1. The targeting inclusive of capturing and executing of news reporters and thier crews which in order to slow the transfer of information to the enemy's general population
Needs a better word than "Bans", in my opinion.

2. Any news agency from forcing reporters to go into warzones against thier will, with a threat of job loss or any other punishment
Okay.
ESTABLISHES: The IWNRA (International Wartime News Reporting Administartion) that will oversee the protection and transport of news reporters, crews and equipment.
And just how do you plan on doing that? Using mercenaries, charging their nation's military with their safety, or do we have another one who wants to give the WA an army?

As it stands right now, this proposal is too general. It needs specifics. And a grammar check.

[Germania Alliance]

The proper term for someone reporting from a warzone would be a "war correspondent."

"Their jobs require war correspondents to deliberately go to the most conflict-ridden parts of the world. Once there they attempt to get close enough to the action to provide written accounts, photos, or film footage. Thus, being a war correspondent is often considered the most dangerous form of journalism. On the other hand, war coverage is also one of the most successful branches of journalism." - Wiki

[Dizyntk]

"Correspondent and reporter are just glorified words for a spy. Their broadcasts may very well aid the enemy. They have chosen to enter a battlefield of their own volition, often carrying broadcast equipment. If any are seen pointing these devices at my troops without having first obtained permission, then my troops will quite rightly target them as enemy intelligence operatives. Need I say that the Dizyntk are totally OPPOSED to this?"

[Connopolis]

"Correspondent and reporter are just glorified words for a spy. Their broadcasts may very well aid the enemy. They have chosen to enter a battlefield of their own volition, often carrying broadcast equipment. If any are seen pointing these devices at my troops without having first obtained permission, then my troops will quite rightly target them as enemy intelligence operatives. Need I say that the Dizyntk are totally OPPOSED to this?"

Perhaps that's the solution? Allow individual member states to decide whether or not war correspondents can collect information from their territory. If not, they're fair game. This should be fairly simple to implement, (OOC: I'll elaborate on the subject when I get on a computer).

[Flibbleites]

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Grays Harbor]

Reporters who choose to put themselves to go to front line areas of operation understand that there is risk involved. It is a combat zone. There is danger involved. Go figure. We do not require WA hired and approved mercenary forces becoming involved.

[Germania Alliance]

Many war correspondents fight alongside the men and women they cover, so this may be an issue you want to cover.

[Sanctaria]

Reporters who choose to put themselves to go to front line areas of operation understand that there is risk involved. It is a combat zone. There is danger involved. Go figure. We do not require WA hired and approved mercenary forces becoming involved.

I'd have to agree with the sentiments expressed by my fellow Ambassador. If a news agency can manage to get a reporter into a war zone, then one can assume they can hire their own protection.

I'm also inclined to believe that this can easily be handled by the nation from which the reporter hails. One of their own gets into trouble, it's their responsibility to get them out.

Having a separate protection for a reporter than for a diplomat, soldier or native in the area may also be a violation of CoCR.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.

[Black Marne]

Esteemed ambassador, while your concern for these news reporters is commendable, you surely must already know that they go into these war zones fully aware that they may die in the process, no? And as such, the WA should not be concerning itself with their protection, especially when they can acquire their own. So, as a result, the Argonians of Black Marne are against this proposal.

-The Allied States of Black Marne

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper considers this to be insignificant for international consideration, but unreasonable attacking of unarmed civilians is not acceptable and if it isn't covered then I may investigate the issue.

[Antartica55]

Many war correspondents fight alongside the men and women they cover, so this may be an issue you want to cover.

Okay so the War correspondents can have no affiliation with the military, ill be sure to add that

[Connopolis]

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:

• 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 World Assembly, therefore;

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of divulging false information, 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.

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

Before anyone yells at me for declaring myself as Co-author; the author and I came to the conclusion that I would be co-author prior to my redraft.

Yours warmly,

[Antartica55]

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:

• War Correspondent as an 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 World Assembly, therefore;

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of divulging false information, 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 current 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.

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

Before anyone yells at me for declaring myself as Co-author; the author and I came to the conclusion that I would be co-author prior to my redraft.

Yours warmly,

Thats Just about perfect

[Dizyntk]

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of divulging false information, 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.

"Exactly why shouldn't my soldiers give false information to a reporter? If it helps to confuse the enemy I will encourage them to do so. It is the reporter's job to determine if the information is false. It is not a soldier's job to tell them the truth. Actually it is nobody's job to tell them the truth."

[Connopolis]

1) Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of divulging false information, 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.

"Exactly why shouldn't my soldiers give false information to a reporter? If it helps to confuse the enemy I will encourage them to do so. It is the reporter's job to determine if the information is false. It is not a soldier's job to tell them the truth. Actually it is nobody's job to tell them the truth."

Of course ambassador, I would normally agree. However, hypothetically, Connopolis and Dizyntk went to war:

Connopolis' militants tell your News reporters that we'll be deploying nuclear weapons within hours. Dizyntk is sent into a state of panic, Connopolis seizes the opportunity, and you've effectively destroyed yourself by allowing my militants to abuse war correspondents.

It's a double bladed sword, Feyalisa. The provision mutually benefits all parties.

Yours,

[Separatist Peoples]

"Exactly why shouldn't my soldiers give false information to a reporter? If it helps to confuse the enemy I will encourage them to do so. It is the reporter's job to determine if the information is false. It is not a soldier's job to tell them the truth. Actually it is nobody's job to tell them the truth."

Of course ambassador, I would normally agree. However, hypothetically, Connopolis and Dizyntk went to war:

Connopolis' militants tell your News reporters that we'll be deploying nuclear weapons within hours. Dizyntk is sent into a state of panic, Connopolis seizes the opportunity, and you've effectively destroyed yourself by allowing my militants to abuse war correspondents.

It's a double bladed sword, Feyalisa. The provision mutually benefits all parties.

Yours,

Except that intelligence received in that manner goes through levels and levels of analysis to verify it...so the argument is hyperbolic. Anything that mandates we tell the truth in a warzone, specifically in regards to strategic and tactical planning, is something that will not pass. There is no double edged sword, simply a clause that need not exist.

[Antartica55]

Of course ambassador, I would normally agree. However, hypothetically, Connopolis and Dizyntk went to war:

Connopolis' militants tell your News reporters that we'll be deploying nuclear weapons within hours. Dizyntk is sent into a state of panic, Connopolis seizes the opportunity, and you've effectively destroyed yourself by allowing my militants to abuse war correspondents.

It's a double bladed sword, Feyalisa. The provision mutually benefits all parties.

Yours,

Except that intelligence received in that manner goes through levels and levels of analysis to verify it...so the argument is hyperbolic. Anything that mandates we tell the truth in a warzone, specifically in regards to strategic and tactical planning, is something that will not pass. There is no double edged sword, simply a clause that need not exist.

Well that is true but thats for goverment spy agencies not news channels who would simply fact check the info by interviewing other militants

[Connopolis]

Of course ambassador, I would normally agree. However, hypothetically, Connopolis and Dizyntk went to war:

Connopolis' militants tell your News reporters that we'll be deploying nuclear weapons within hours. Dizyntk is sent into a state of panic, Connopolis seizes the opportunity, and you've effectively destroyed yourself by allowing my militants to abuse war correspondents.

It's a double bladed sword, Feyalisa. The provision mutually benefits all parties.

Yours,

Except that intelligence received in that manner goes through levels and levels of analysis to verify it...so the argument is hyperbolic. Anything that mandates we tell the truth in a warzone, specifically in regards to strategic and tactical planning, is something that will not pass. There is no double edged sword, simply a clause that need not exist.

I'm sure that's what was said during the Cold War, when Americans spent tens of thousands of dollars on bomb shelters based off of personal speculation - God forbid, if an official war correspondent unintentionally verified this false information, I can only imagine the ramification. By the time a nation's government has analyzed this "in-depth", the nation would be in disarray. I advise you read about RL incidents prior to making assumptions.

Yours in protection both citizens and reporters,

[Separatist Peoples]

Except that intelligence received in that manner goes through levels and levels of analysis to verify it...so the argument is hyperbolic. Anything that mandates we tell the truth in a warzone, specifically in regards to strategic and tactical planning, is something that will not pass. There is no double edged sword, simply a clause that need not exist.

I'm sure that's what was said during the Cold War, when Americans spent tens of thousands of dollars on bomb shelters based off of personal speculation - God forbid, if an official war correspondent unintentionally verified this false information, I can only imagine the ramification. By the time a nation's government has analyzed this "in-depth", the nation would be in disarray. I advise you read about RL incidents prior to making assumptions.

Yours in protection both citizens and reporters,

Information regarding the usage of atomics is not lightly taken. No reporter is going to simply take the word of the average militant. For that matter, the average militant wouldn't be aware of such a plan.

Additionally, no reporter worth their boots is going to report such a far-fetched fantasy, and even if they do, very few people are going to take that as seriously as you seem to think. The information regarding atomic weapons would have to be verified by the government's extensive tracking systems and military experts before such claims would be taken seriously. After all, why the hell would a news agency know about such a catastrophic event, when the government, with all its expensive equipment, was left totally in the dark?

[Separatist Peoples]

Except that intelligence received in that manner goes through levels and levels of analysis to verify it...so the argument is hyperbolic. Anything that mandates we tell the truth in a warzone, specifically in regards to strategic and tactical planning, is something that will not pass. There is no double edged sword, simply a clause that need not exist.

Well that is true but thats for goverment spy agencies not news channels who would simply fact check the info by interviewing other militants

News channels check their facts just like intelligence agencies do. The entire reputation of the program is reliant on that fact-checking ability...

[Connopolis]

I'm sure that's what was said during the Cold War, when Americans spent tens of thousands of dollars on bomb shelters based off of personal speculation - God forbid, if an official war correspondent unintentionally verified this false information, I can only imagine the ramification. By the time a nation's government has analyzed this "in-depth", the nation would be in disarray. I advise you read about RL incidents prior to making assumptions.

Yours in protection both citizens and reporters,

Information regarding the usage of atomics is not lightly taken. No reporter is going to simply take the word of the average militant. For that matter, the average militant wouldn't be aware of such a plan.

Additionally, no reporter worth their boots is going to report such a far-fetched fantasy, and even if they do, very few people are going to take that as seriously as you seem to think. The information regarding atomic weapons would have to be verified by the government's extensive tracking systems and military experts before such claims would be taken seriously. After all, why the hell would a news agency know about such a catastrophic event, when the government, with all its expensive equipment, was left totally in the dark?

The variable you seem to be excluding/neglecting is the fact that citizens tend to trust the news. Again, citizens spent tens of thousands of dollars on bomb shelters purely based off of personal speculation. Should a militant divulge false information, the individual nation would be thrown into disarray. Citizens are much more likely to believe what they see on the news than they are to believe government officials - take a look at the American right and Fox news.

Simply banking on the notion that militants won't divulge false information in that regard, and citizens won't believe it does not mean that it won't happen.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

Edit: Extra sarcasm snipped...

[Separatist Peoples]

The variable you seem to be excluding/neglecting is the fact that citizens tend to trust the news. Again, citizens spent tens of thousands of dollars on bomb shelters purely based off of personal speculation. Should a militant divulge false information, the individual nation would be thrown into disarray. Citizens are much more likely to believe what they see on the news than they are to believe government officials - take a look at the American right and Fox news.

Simply banking on the notion that militants won't divulge false information in that regard, and citizens won't believe it does not mean that it won't happen.

Yours,

The claim that this would throw a nation into disarray is as deluded as the claim that the citizenry would honestly believe the threat of a full-out atomic strike looms while the government sits on its hands and does nothing is.

If such a claim was made, there would have to be certifiable proof. The news agencies have nothing but the word of the militants to go off of. Lets face it: do you really expect the enemy to tell you the truth? The government, on the other hand, has all the capabilities to verify such a statement. Therefore, in such a circumstance, the government's opinion would outweigh that of a civilian news branch. This is of course assuming that less then 25% of the population isn't retarded, which is, of course a problem in many nations these days.

Your argument that such a claim, from the mouth of the enemy, no less, is powerful enough to throw a nation into chaos is foolish in the highest degree. There is no proof that such a statement would cause chaos to the degree you are describing, mostly because nations receive such information on a daily basis in the NS world, and few of them immediately devolve into a state of panicked anarchy. A little bit of common sense to go with your claims goes a long way, ambassador.

OOC: We get it. You don't like the right, or Fox news. Never mind the fact that several other news networks are just as biased in the other direction, you don't need to continually hammer that point home.

[Connopolis]

The variable you seem to be excluding/neglecting is the fact that citizens tend to trust the news. Again, citizens spent tens of thousands of dollars on bomb shelters purely based off of personal speculation. Should a militant divulge false information, the individual nation would be thrown into disarray. Citizens are much more likely to believe what they see on the news than they are to believe government officials - take a look at the American right and Fox news.

Simply banking on the notion that militants won't divulge false information in that regard, and citizens won't believe it does not mean that it won't happen.

Yours,

The claim that this would throw a nation into disarray is as deluded as the claim that the citizenry would honestly believe the threat of a full-out atomic strike looms while the government sits on its hands and does nothing is.

If such a claim was made, there would have to be certifiable proof. The news agencies have nothing but the word of the militants to go off of. Lets face it: do you really expect the enemy to tell you the truth? The government, on the other hand, has all the capabilities to verify such a statement. Therefore, in such a circumstance, the government's opinion would outweigh that of a civilian news branch. This is of course assuming that less then 25% of the population isn't retarded, which is, of course a problem in many nations these days.

Your argument that such a claim, from the mouth of the enemy, no less, is powerful enough to throw a nation into chaos is foolish in the highest degree. There is no proof that such a statement would cause chaos to the degree you are describing, mostly because nations receive such information on a daily basis in the NS world, and few of them immediately devolve into a state of panicked anarchy. A little bit of common sense to go with your claims goes a long way, ambassador.

OOC: We get it. You don't like the right, or Fox news. Never mind the fact that several other news networks are just as biased in the other direction, you don't need to continually hammer that point home.

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,