[PASSED] Military Identification Tag Act

[Alba and Cymru]

"And? I don't particularly care how foreigners choose to insult their militaries, or the handwaving about it; the Imperium will not have it enshrined into international law."

"Alright then. I will remove the colloquial term."

"It would be best to simply remove every other part of that clause. 'Allows Member-States to add other information deemed necessary,' something along those lines."

"Noted."

[Wallenburg]

Oppose.

They are not deserving of identification if they could not bother to survive.

"Ambassador, I don't need to be a major in the Wallenburgian army to tell you that sort of perspective not only is incredibly callous and dismissive of the lives of your fellow people, but also is detrimental to the continued operational ability of your military."

[Maowi]

OOC: It doesn't cause any problems, but clause 2 seems kind of unnecessary.

Conventionally, defining clauses are put as full verbs ("defines", not "defining") and go after the preamble; I think it's a bit neater that way.

[Alba and Cymru]

The second draft has been uploaded.

"We have shaped up the first draft by adding and removing what was recommended thus far. Even so, I would say that there is plenty of room for improvement. If there is any further recommendations with how to better-shape this bill, they will be much appreciated."

[Richonne]

Oppose.

They are not deserving of identification if they could not bother to survive.

"It appears that you are not deserving of soldiers if you possess that much disregard for them."

It is mandatory that every citizen serves.

[Richonne]

Oppose.

They are not deserving of identification if they could not bother to survive.

"Ambassador, I don't need to be a major in the Wallenburgian army to tell you that sort of perspective not only is incredibly callous and dismissive of the lives of your fellow people, but also is detrimental to the continued operational ability of your military."

Identities are for winners, and winners are survivors.

[Alba and Cymru]

"It appears that you are not deserving of soldiers if you possess that much disregard for them."

It is mandatory that every citizen serves.

"Officers? Yes, who let this stranger into the General Assembly building?"

[The World Assembly Elite]

It is mandatory that every citizen serves.

"Officers? Yes, who let this stranger into the General Assembly building?"

The walls begin to creak and groan. No, that's not it. They breathe. The breathing grows into whispers, and the occasional gnomish chuckle.

...compliance is mandatory...

...compliance is mandatory...

[Araraukar]

IC: "So, again, how does this apply to civil rights?"

OOC: I would think International Security: Mild would be more appropriate, given that you would literally be increasing spending on the military with this, with the idea of military dead being identified.

[Alba and Cymru]

IC: "So, again, how does this apply to civil rights?"

OOC: I would think International Security: Mild would be more appropriate, given that you would literally be increasing spending on the military with this, with the idea of military dead being identified.

In all honesty, this bill could be classified either way. The proposal was written for the intention of protecting the rights of the men and women of the armed forces, both medically and posthumously. But I can also see why this would be classified under international security. I can change the classification and move the strength to mild if needed.

[Turpotia]

It's interesting that you that its illegal to have tags for unregistered persoonel with public funding. My advice with that is to make it a bit clearer for the people to read and that's it I have to say.

[Sebero Sree]

"The Republic of Sebero Sree would like to officially extend our support to this proposal considering the fact that families of millions of unidentified soldiers around the world were denied of their right to arrange a proper funeral for their loved one. We will be voting for this proposal if it is submitted and reaches the voting stage, and urges all other member nations to do the same."
-Ambassador Ajanta Davis

[Potted Plants United]

"The Republic of Sebero Sree would like to officially extend our support to this proposal considering the fact that families of millions of unidentified soldiers around the world were denied of their right to arrange a proper funeral for their loved one. We will be voting for this proposal if it is submitted and reaches the voting stage, and urges all other member nations to do the same."
-Ambassador Ajanta Davis

The hivemind's newest, possibly-bipedal "ambassador" had entered the debate chamber in time to catch the statement. "Why would your nation deny its soldiers' families from arranging proper funerals for their loved ones, even lacking a body? There won't be a body left in all cases of violent death, such as when an airplane impacts the ground at a high velocity. Organic things tend to cease to exist in any recognizable form. Does your nation deny the right of the loved ones to hold a funeral then, too, given they do not have a properly recognized body to bury?" Addressing its words to the author, the plant creature continued, "Rather than requiring perishable items - whether they are metal or plastic, if you apply enough force, you will not have anything left that survives - it would be much better to require either perishable hyena tags¹ like what you are suggesting, or for militaries to keep proper track of their soldiers so that they can just tell you which soldiers died in which attack, without needing to loot their bodies for proof. Also, while soldiers can swap their tags with one another, they cannot do so with their genetic material, so even that would be a better way of keeping track of who is who, post-mortem, than an item you can remove or forget to wear."

¹OOC note: The hivemind thinks that wars are a waste of resources and doesn't have much respect for militaries in general, hence it amusing itself by a different canine reference used, instead of "dog". It should perhaps be clear to all that the hivemind's opinions do not always coincide with mine.

[Aynia Moreaux]

Looking over this, I think it's been well thought out and has my full support. I think the only nitpick I have

WISHING to reunite those who are killed-in-action with their loved ones for proper funeral services,

DEFINES a military identification tag as either a non-corrosive metal item or any durable item worn by military personnel for the purpose of identifying a deceased body of a military combatant,

KNOWING that military identification tags lend tremendous help in seeking missing-in-action or killed-in-action military combatants,

Maybe change DEFINES to DEFINING, so it fits in with the others? Everything else is ending in ING and that ones kind of sticking out.

But other than that, I think this is something important that needs addressed, if there has been no standard set for military identification already.

[Potted Plants United]

Maybe change DEFINES to DEFINING, so it fits in with the others? Everything else is ending in ING and that ones kind of sticking out.

OOC: No, it should be "defines", because it's an active clause. But it SHOULD be moved to be AFTER the preamble (clauses ending with -ing) to hang out with the rest of the active clauses. So it's correctly written but wrongly placed.

[Loller Corleone]

Maybe change DEFINES to DEFINING, so it fits in with the others? Everything else is ending in ING and that ones kind of sticking out.

OOC: No, it should be "defines", because it's an active clause. But it SHOULD be moved to be AFTER the preamble (clauses ending with -ing) to hang out with the rest of the active clauses. So it's correctly written but wrongly placed.

OOC: I don't think it's placed wrong at all. I mean yes, DEFINES is the right word but if we were to place it after the clauses ending with -ing, we would have to change all those clauses where the terms defined in the said definitions clause is used. That would require a lot of unnecessary re-writing in my opinion.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I don't think it's placed wrong at all. I mean yes, DEFINES is the right word but if we were to place it after the clauses ending with -ing, we would have to change all those clauses where the terms defined in the said definitions clause is used. That would require a lot of unnecessary re-writing in my opinion.

OOC: *looks at the draft again* Not really. Just a few word changes. Also, the preamble can be meaningless noises for all the GenSec cares, so just move the defines clause to the start of the active clauses and don't worry about the preamble for now. Having it in the preamble makes no sense anyway, as it's not a preamble clause.

[Alba and Cymru]

"The Republic of Sebero Sree would like to officially extend our support to this proposal considering the fact that families of millions of unidentified soldiers around the world were denied of their right to arrange a proper funeral for their loved one. We will be voting for this proposal if it is submitted and reaches the voting stage, and urges all other member nations to do the same."
-Ambassador Ajanta Davis

"Thank you for your support, ambassador. We look forward to enshrining this proposal into law."

[Alba and Cymru]

OOC: I don't think it's placed wrong at all. I mean yes, DEFINES is the right word but if we were to place it after the clauses ending with -ing, we would have to change all those clauses where the terms defined in the said definitions clause is used. That would require a lot of unnecessary re-writing in my opinion.

OOC: *looks at the draft again* Not really. Just a few word changes. Also, the preamble can be meaningless noises for all the GenSec cares, so just move the defines clause to the start of the active clauses and don't worry about the preamble for now. Having it in the preamble makes no sense anyway, as it's not a preamble clause.

"Looking over the proposal, I agree with your stance. We should move "Defines" to after the preamble and make it the first legislative clause."

[Alba and Cymru]

Third draft is up. Apologies for the dormancy, I've had some business to do in the past 2 weeks.

Changes:

- Moved "Defining" from the preamble to the clauses
- Added a friendly provisions clause
- Grammar checks & Reordering

[Maowi]

"In clause 1, "either a non-corrosive metal item or" seems redundant. Also, I believe an "of" is missing after "bodies" in clause 4."

[Alba and Cymru]

"In clause 1, "either a non-corrosive metal item or" seems redundant. Also, I believe an "of" is missing after "bodies" in clause 4."

"Apologies for the typo. It will be corrected. However, is the word ordering/choice or description of a MID tag redundant? We can amend the grammatical errors if possible, but the part that states, 'or any durable item,' is in response to concerns that 'non-corrosive metal item' would be an issue in metal-poor nations. Perhaps 'non-corrosive metal item' should be removed altogether?"

[Kenmoria]

“What is the rationale behind clause 6?”

[Alba and Cymru]

“What is the rationale behind clause 6?”

"It is to discourage member nations from using tax revenue to fund or issue equipment to proxy armies and mercenaries."

[Kenmoria]

“What is the rationale behind clause 6?”

"It is to discourage member nations from using tax revenue to fund or issue equipment to proxy armies and mercenaries."

“I don’t see why this is an issue. In Kenmoria, the majority of military might is subcontracted from various reputable firms, so as to encourage economic freedom, and discourage the government from gaining an unwarranted monopoly on the use of force. Surely these brave soldiers too deserve identification.

I recognise that this is not a common system, and indeed a very controversial one. However, I think an outright prohibition on the Kenmorian government using its tax Euros for a certain purpose is too far. Perhaps a discouragement with an ‘Urging’ or ‘Recommending’ clause might be more appropriate here?”