[PASSED] Repeal: "Military Identification Tag Act"

[Morover]

*Deep Breath*

Allow me to put this to rest, OOC.

I apologize for sending a few delegates two counter-campaign telegrams. I had originally sent one to all delegates approximately 24 hours after the repeal had been submitted, and I waited another 24 before I politely asked delegates who have approved to reconsider. In hindsight, this was the incorrect move. I should have had other people have a hand in this campaign. I was unaware that individual telegrams are considered second telegrams on top of a mass campaign. My fault.

Second, for those who are accusing me of badge-hunting, this is not at all true. I already have the badge, so my nation stats have nothing to lose if this repeal passes. The reason why I am defending this proposal is the same reason any other author would. This issue in particular is a special interest of mine both in-game and irl. I'm not defending a badge, I'm defending a position.

Lastly, no matter what I say in regards to this repeal on this thread, we all know that this will be submitted anyways. I could rewrite the Bible itself on why MIDTA should stand, but I'm not ever going to change the flair from "Draft" to "Abandoned". Hence why I have not vocalized my opinion on this particular proposal.

Again, I was unaware that individual telegrams are weighed the same as a mass-campaign when it comes to counter-campaigning. I received a telegram hours ago to not do that again, so I concede. I apologize if I had annoyed anybody, and I apologize for breaking the rules.

OOC:

If you made legitimate points, I might abandon it. You haven't. To me, your telegram reads as disingenuous - especially since you did not approach me regarding your concerns, thus making me unable to respond to your concerns, and detracting from the overall quality of the draft. The fact that it may or may not change the submission of this proposal is irrelevant.

I stand by my statement that if you truly believed that my repeal mischaracterized your resolution, you would've submitted a legality challenge, which you did not do.

[Sebero Sree]

The World Assembly,

Admiring the goal of GAR#490, Military Identification Tag Act, in trying to reunite lost soldiers with their families and to reduce the number of unknown soldiers,

Noting, however, that information such as that required by the resolution can be detrimental to member nations soldiers if it falls into the hands of an enemy belligerent,

The original proposal only specifically mentions full name, military identification number and blood type. I think we can all agree that both military id number and blood type won't be detrimental even if it falls into the hands of an enemy. As for the full name, an enemy force that would mistreat a POW based on their name wouldn't really require an identification tag to find their name. Most soldiers carry things such as letters from loved ones, pictures of their family etc and anyone could easily get the names from those.

Worried that some member nations which may add potentially compromising information such as religion to military identification tags in an attempt to ensure the proper burial of deceased soldiers when in conflict with good-faith and generally benevolent actors will not have the resources or general competence to redistribute the military identification tags to each soldier, should they come into conflict with more nefarious belligerents who may use this compromising information in order to employ somewhat creative forms of torture - a condition that ultimately detracts from the basic rights that the General Assembly attempts to uphold,

All nations would try to protect their soldiers as they are a highly valuable asset. It is just absurd to claim that any nation would intentionally put their soldiers in harm's way. The original proposal never makes it mandatory to include religion on the tags. If our nation is going for a war against a country that is known to discriminate people based on their religion, we would definitely not add the religion of soldiers in their tag(we wouldn't even otherwise). And yes, we would still be able to carry out their proper burials because we can easily look up their information from our secured military databases(which is something that pretty much all armed forces have) using the military identification number that is printed on these tags on a mandatory basis.

Dismaying that, as a result of section 7, combatants taken as prisoners of war cannot destroy their military identification tags to protect themselves from the creative forms of torture that may arise from these tags without violating international law, hindering the ability for soldiers to take their livelihood under their own discretion,

As we have said above, we don't think the tags would add on to the torture. Also, it is pretty much common sense that if any of our soldiers somehow falls under the custody of a force as despicable in their conduct towards POWs as you describe, they will be tortured no matter what.

Considering the fact that section 8 lacks proper protocols for when a military identification tag is considered decommissioned, which, depending on interpretation, may disallow the repurposing of military identification tags by any entity,

Disheartened that section 8 neglects to allow the families or friends of fallen soldiers to repurpose former tags to whatever they see fit for closure - neglecting the impact that the loss of a loved one to war and the need to lessen that impact through a variety of channels, and

But if one only reads the original proposal, it will become clear that the reason why any fixed protocol was not added was because it is better to leave it to each individual nation to see how they wish to deal with the decommissioned tags. This also means that nations can let the families of fallen soldiers to re-purpose the tags as they fit. But it shouldn't be rightly upto the WA to mandate as it will further the burden for member nations that aren't very well off. So clearly the original proposal is right in not putting any arbitrary requirements as far as this issue is concerned.

Believing that these issues only go to show that no one-size-fits-all legislation can cover the issue of military identification tags for all nations adequately, hereby

Considering all I have said above, I don't think you have shown any serious problems with the original proposal to consider a repeal.

Repeals GAR#490, "Military Identification Tag Act."

Against.

[Separatist Peoples]

All nations would try to protect their soldiers as they are a highly valuable asset. It is just absurd to claim that any nation would intentionally put their soldiers in harm's way.

"And yet, that is what wars are. It does not baffle the mind that nations would put their interests over the lives of their soldiers. This naivete spills over into the utopian outlook for such tags. I question the underlying utility of mandating military identification of this sort in the first place at the international level."

[Aynia Moreaux]

Speaking on behalf of Caer Sidi, we are very proud of Alba and Cymru and we back this resolution whole heartedly, and we would really hate to see it repealed.

I'd like to go over the latest telegram I received this morning with some rebuttals.

"For instance, while allowing member states to include the faith of their soldiers on ID tags may be tolerable against opponents who play and fight by the rules, such could lead to torture if found by somewhat less scrupilous combatants"

They have the option to put them on or leave them off, fully being aware of this risk. Why take away their option to choose? Thinking more on this, people who don't play by the rules, well, don't play by the rules. They aren't going to care the least about what it says on a tag, they're going to find any reason under the sun to treat them poorly. I think what's more important here is giving member nations the option to show their faith if that is what they want, rather than sanitizing soldiers tags. Furthermore, there's nothing in this stating that militaries can't use codes for different religions in order to facilitate last rights at burials, instead of blatantly writing what their faith is. It could be a code only known to that military.

"Article 7 completely forbids all forms of ID tag destruction which could help to prevent such atrocities. Whether soldiers return from the battlefield alive or dead, Article 8 poses a potential barrier to their friends and family repurposing their ID tags in their memory."

Article 7 states:

7. Prohibits the intentional destruction or displacement of active or salvaged military identification tags by any means,

And right after it article 8 states:

8. Allows member nations to re-purpose the materials in military identification tags after they have been decommissioned.

Member nations may do whatever they wish with decommissioned tags. And this clearly says intentional destruction, which in it's definition means: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired.

Clearly altering a tag for memorial purposes does not fit into this and your argument doesn't make sense to me.

[Tinhampton]

snip

7: If you're destroying an ID tag to stop something bad from happening to you, odds are you're doing so deliberately

8: Please explain how A&C intended for an ID tag to be decommissioned.

9: In the interests of transparency...

Code: Select all

Greetings, Delegate. I write to request your approval of [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=morover_1593230495]Morover's repeal of GA#490 "Military Tag Identification Act,"[/url] which requires twenty-two approvals in less than eighteen hours.

Although laudable on the surface, the target resolution occasionally fails to provide for practical solutions. For instance, while allowing member states to include the faith of their soldiers on ID tags may be tolerable against opponents who play and fight by the rules, such could lead to torture if found by somewhat less scrupilous combatants; Article 7 completely forbids all forms of ID tag destruction which could help to prevent such atrocities. Whether soldiers return from the battlefield alive or dead, Article 8 poses a potential barrier to their friends and family repurposing their ID tags in their memory.

Since legislation cannot be amended, only repealed, it is imperative that GA#490 be struck from the record; with that said, you can approve Morover's repeal by clicking here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=morover_1593230495

Thank you very much,
[nation]Tinhampton[/nation]

[Sebero Sree]

All nations would try to protect their soldiers as they are a highly valuable asset. It is just absurd to claim that any nation would intentionally put their soldiers in harm's way.

"And yet, that is what wars are. It does not baffle the mind that nations would put their interests over the lives of their soldiers. This naivete spills over into the utopian outlook for such tags. I question the underlying utility of mandating military identification of this sort in the first place at the international level."

Defending a nation's sovereignty (through wars if necessary) is literally what soldiers are trained for so your argument doesn't make much sense. I don't see how would any nation's interests would be served by putting their soldiers in unnecessary harm's way. What would my nation gain by imposing any further hardships on my soldiers who are captured by an enemy force?


Most arguments here are assuming that nations would intentionally put damaging information on their soldiers' identification tag. I just don't see any logic in that argument, as I have said before. Nations have an inherent interest to protect their own soldiers and reduce the number of casualties on their side.

[Alba and Cymru]

"Seeing that this has reached quorum, we will draft a new resolution with recognition of the critiques MIDTA has acquired in the case of its repeal. The difficult part is coming up with a better title."

[Morover]

The World Assembly,

Admiring the goal of GAR#490, Military Identification Tag Act, in trying to reunite lost soldiers with their families and to reduce the number of unknown soldiers,

Noting, however, that information such as that required by the resolution can be detrimental to member nations soldiers if it falls into the hands of an enemy belligerent,

The original proposal only specifically mentions full name, military identification number and blood type. I think we can all agree that both military id number and blood type won't be detrimental even if it falls into the hands of an enemy. As for the full name, an enemy force that would mistreat a POW based on their name wouldn't really require an identification tag to find their name. Most soldiers carry things such as letters from loved ones, pictures of their family etc and anyone could easily get the names from those.

"You are correct, this was somewhat poor wording on my part - but I feel that the rest of the proposal adequately reflects the true meaning here, and the wording is inconsequential. Having personal mementos is different, as they can be destroyed at will to hide the identity of a combatant if they so choose."

Worried that some member nations which may add potentially compromising information such as religion to military identification tags in an attempt to ensure the proper burial of deceased soldiers when in conflict with good-faith and generally benevolent actors will not have the resources or general competence to redistribute the military identification tags to each soldier, should they come into conflict with more nefarious belligerents who may use this compromising information in order to employ somewhat creative forms of torture - a condition that ultimately detracts from the basic rights that the General Assembly attempts to uphold,

All nations would try to protect their soldiers as they are a highly valuable asset. It is just absurd to claim that any nation would intentionally put their soldiers in harm's way. The original proposal never makes it mandatory to include religion on the tags. If our nation is going for a war against a country that is known to discriminate people based on their religion, we would definitely not add the religion of soldiers in their tag(we wouldn't even otherwise). And yes, we would still be able to carry out their proper burials because we can easily look up their information from our secured military databases(which is something that pretty much all armed forces have) using the military identification number that is printed on these tags on a mandatory basis.

"I think you overestimate the benevolence of nations. Additionally, to a lesser extent, espionage can be employed if all information is stored securely on a database in the member-nation. My mam and pap always had a saying, 'common sense is not so common' - this is especially true among politicians. As I've previously stated, religion may be put on a tag in order to ensure the proper burial of a soldier, regardless of what side recovers their body, and a change cannot be made when the opposing nation becomes more malevolent."

Considering the fact that section 8 lacks proper protocols for when a military identification tag is considered decommissioned, which, depending on interpretation, may disallow the repurposing of military identification tags by any entity,

Disheartened that section 8 neglects to allow the families or friends of fallen soldiers to repurpose former tags to whatever they see fit for closure - neglecting the impact that the loss of a loved one to war and the need to lessen that impact through a variety of channels, and

But if one only reads the original proposal, it will become clear that the reason why any fixed protocol was not added was because it is better to leave it to each individual nation to see how they wish to deal with the decommissioned tags. This also means that nations can let the families of fallen soldiers to re-purpose the tags as they fit. But it shouldn't be rightly upto the WA to mandate as it will further the burden for member nations that aren't very well off. So clearly the original proposal is right in not putting any arbitrary requirements as far as this issue is concerned.

"Ambassador - you're not reading our concern. If the resolution states 'member-nations have full authority to decommission military identification tags in whatever way they see fit', there'd be no problems here. But it doesn't. It refers to what member-nations can do with decommissioned tags, with no protocol to do so. Furthermore, clause eight specifically says that 'member-nations [may] re-purpose the materials in military identification tags after they have been decommissioned' - they specify the materials. Not the tag itself. I think that's pretty clearly not able to be applied to just giving tags to families or friends of fallen soldiers - or even the soldiers themselves after they return, even if we ignore the issue with no protocol for decommissioning."

Believing that these issues only go to show that no one-size-fits-all legislation can cover the issue of military identification tags for all nations adequately, hereby

Considering all I have said above, I don't think you have shown any serious problems with the original proposal to consider a repeal.

"I think you're not reading the text of both the repeal and the target accurately enough to claim that these aren't 'serious problems.' Your argument about creative torture holds some merit, though I disagree with your expectations of nations as a whole, but the argument regarding decommissioning tags is completely nonsensical."

Speaking on behalf of Caer Sidi, we are very proud of Alba and Cymru and we back this resolution whole heartedly, and we would really hate to see it repealed.

Thank you for clarifying that Alba and Cymru does speak on your behalf - I couldn't find that anywhere.

"For instance, while allowing member states to include the faith of their soldiers on ID tags may be tolerable against opponents who play and fight by the rules, such could lead to torture if found by somewhat less scrupilous combatants"

They have the option to put them on or leave them off, fully being aware of this risk. Why take away their option to choose? Thinking more on this, people who don't play by the rules, well, don't play by the rules. They aren't going to care the least about what it says on a tag, they're going to find any reason under the sun to treat them poorly. I think what's more important here is giving member nations the option to show their faith if that is what they want, rather than sanitizing soldiers tags. Furthermore, there's nothing in this stating that militaries can't use codes for different religions in order to facilitate last rights at burials, instead of blatantly writing what their faith is. It could be a code only known to that military.

OOC: Following this logic, nothing in the proposal requires soldiers to hold the tags on their bodies, nor does it prevent member-nations from disallowing tags from being used. I don't think this is necessarily a reasonable interpretation, but if your refute of my argument is correct, then it has to be interpreted that way, and I think that even supporters of the original resolution would be opposed to something that essentially negates the entire point of the resolution - either way you interpret it, you have an issue.

RE codes: At this point, I think I've made abundantly clear that the only reason a nation would put religion on a tag would be in case an enemy nation recovers the body - it should be fairly easy for a home nation to find out a religion of they're the recoverers.

"Article 7 completely forbids all forms of ID tag destruction which could help to prevent such atrocities. Whether soldiers return from the battlefield alive or dead, Article 8 poses a potential barrier to their friends and family repurposing their ID tags in their memory."

Article 7 states:

7. Prohibits the intentional destruction or displacement of active or salvaged military identification tags by any means,

And right after it article 8 states:

8. Allows member nations to re-purpose the materials in military identification tags after they have been decommissioned.

Member nations may do whatever they wish with decommissioned tags. And this clearly says intentional destruction, which in it's definition means: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired.

Clearly altering a tag for memorial purposes does not fit into this and your argument doesn't make sense to me.

No, member-nations may do whatever they wish with the materials of decommissioned tags. There's a difference. And this is largely irrelevant to my argument anyways - there's no protocols for decommissioning a tag. I never claimed that the ban on intentional destruction bans the decommissioning or use for memorial purposes, I believe that the two are unrelated.

"And yet, that is what wars are. It does not baffle the mind that nations would put their interests over the lives of their soldiers. This naivete spills over into the utopian outlook for such tags. I question the underlying utility of mandating military identification of this sort in the first place at the international level."

Defending a nation's sovereignty (through wars if necessary) is literally what soldiers are trained for so your argument doesn't make much sense. I don't see how would any nation's interests would be served by putting their soldiers in unnecessary harm's way. What would my nation gain by imposing any further hardships on my soldiers who are captured by an enemy force?


Most arguments here are assuming that nations would intentionally put damaging information on their soldiers' identification tag. I just don't see any logic in that argument, as I have said before. Nations have an inherent interest to protect their own soldiers and reduce the number of casualties on their side.

OOC: I think you overestimate the intelligence of many nations - it would not be intentionally damaging information, but damaging nonetheless.

"Seeing that this has reached quorum, we will draft a new resolution with recognition of the critiques MIDTA has acquired in the case of its repeal. The difficult part is coming up with a better title."

OOC: You can use the same title if you want. No rules against it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You keep saying no decommissioning method. But no commissioning method either. So a nation could distribute the tags as already decommissioned, then there'd be no penalties throwing them away.

[Separatist Peoples]

Defending a nation's sovereignty (through wars if necessary) is literally what soldiers are trained for so your argument doesn't make much sense.

I don't see how would any nation's interests would be served by putting their soldiers in unnecessary harm's way.

"Certainly, when you then move the goalpost, you're argument suddenly seems less unreasonable. You didn't qualify with 'unnecessary'."

What would my nation gain by imposing any further hardships on my soldiers who are captured by an enemy force?

"Not sure, ambassador. Not wishing to impose unnecessary hardships is why the C.D.S.P. avoids instigating conflict."

Most arguments here are assuming that nations would intentionally put damaging information on their soldiers' identification tag. I just don't see any logic in that argument, as I have said before.

"Because the information is not always known to be harmful at the time it is included, ambassador."

Nations have an inherent interest to protect their own soldiers and reduce the number of casualties on their side.

"Nations rarely act in their inherent interests during conflict, often because nations are not perfect actors and operate on less than perfect intel. Come off it, buddy, this is pretty obvious."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Against, for trying to use "dismaying" as a verb.

[Heavens Reach]

Against, for trying to use "dismaying" as a verb.

Technically, it is a verb, if we're going to be pedantic -- your problem with it is probably not with it being used as a verb, but with it being used as an intransitive verb.

[Jakubonia]

I guess we have to rewrite the legislation.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Against, for trying to use "dismaying" as a verb.

OOC: Again? Moreover tried to slip that in in one of his SC drafts. I recommended they change it - they did.

[Morover]

Against, for trying to use "dismaying" as a verb.

OOC: Again? Moreover tried to slip that in in one of his SC drafts. I recommended they change it - they did.

OOC: I'm often wrong, but at least I'm consistent in what I'm wrong about

[Picairn]

OOC: Good job Morover, looks like you are going to get the repeal passed in a landslide! You are winning on both individual nations' and delegates' votes!

[Tinhampton]

Repeal "Military Identification Tag Act" was passed 13,289 votes to 3,283.