[Draft] Standards on Military Identification Tags

[Potted Plants United]

"This may not always be the case. Remember, the previous resolution was (or is about to be) repealed because it was interpreted that soldiers could not dispose of sensitive information on MID tags. If we prescribed subcutaneous tags in this resolution, the information would be impossible to discard."

OOC: You do realize that the data in implanted microchips tends to be a number, with which you then need access to the relevant database to look up the actual info on that individual? I don't see how that could be more insecure than having the stuff written plainly on a thingy around your neck.

[Maowi]

OOC: Think of two future-tech hominid societies which used ID chips for soldiers. If a soldier is captured, I'm sure the enemy could decrypt whatever was in that microchip with proper information on how to from espionage. I'm not going to issue any legislation into this bill regarding ID chips because blending them into this resolution would create the same problem.

OOC: The more generic you can go without compromising the effectiveness of the proposal, the better imo. Why not mandate the desired effect rather than one specific means of getting there? i.e. that soldiers are issued with some sort of identification mechanism which their own side can use and understand, but that either they have a way to remove it if in danger or any other nation is unable to access the information. Then the specific approach can be decided by each individual state.

[Kravonija]

Hello everybody,

I never posted here so bare with me if I’m overstepping our out of line. I also may be replying a bit late and I’m sorry if what I said was already addressed. There are defiantly great points being made here. I feel that there should be a uniform way of identifying soldiers regardless of what nation they belong and that form of identification should not be tampered or destroyed.

According to GAR#18 POW’s

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

with that said there is already legislation that’s passed clarifying what information is of importance and that military combatants may disclose that information. Therefore having an identification tag that includes only the first initial, full last, rank, number, and medical information would be sufficient and in legal standing and there would not be a need to remove such a tag in times of danger. Having medical information such as blood type and allergies would allow for both sides to identify indications and contraindications in the medical services they provide. This information would also be in support of the same legislation GAR#18 where it mandates POW’s

Shelter, fully nutritional food, washing facilities, water, & competent medical attention

since in an event of death or serious injury of a military combatant that can not be retrieved by their own party, the opposing party would be able to claim that individual as a POW and without accurate medical information that mandate under GAR#18 would be broken and that party would be in violation.

I strongly believe there should not be a clause for destruction of these tags, but it should be noted that it is up to the individual combatant to decide what he does with that identification. Nations should provide the identification but shouldn’t be penalised for a soldier not having one. Though, if they don’t have a way to identify themselves then whose to say they are from that nation.

In regards to Maowi’s comment I think there should be a set standard for the information that is on the identification that can be viewed easily by anyone. We shouldn’t be putting classified information to every solider just the basics so we can figure out where they are from and in case of death, return the body to the right country and decrease the amount of unmarked or unknown soldier graves.

Also, the comments made by Araraukar mentioning the differing medical identifications for blood and rh brings up an important issue. The WA has not met the needs of legislation GAR#31. Specifically point II in that legislation.

II) Further encourages coordination between the existing health agencies of nations in order to promote decent health standards in the international community;

. With that said, if the WA has met and achieved the goals of GAR#31 the comments made by Araraukar would be void since there would be a set standard for medical identification specifically blood types. Though, as I’m re-reading the past replies I see that this was addressed and added info for non-human though I still feel there should be some standard but that’s for another day.

Again I’m very sorry if I’m out of line or I made anyone mad. I would like to see this resolution back up for vote and hopefully passed.

[Ardiveds]

Hello everybody,
[...]

Also, the comments made by Araraukar mentioning the differing medical identifications for blood and rh brings up an important issue. The WA has not met the needs of legislation GAR#31. Specifically point II in that legislation.

II) Further encourages coordination between the existing health agencies of nations in order to promote decent health standards in the international community;

. With that said, if the WA has met and achieved the goals of GAR#31 the comments made by Araraukar would be void since there would be a set standard for medical identification specifically blood types. Though, as I’m re-reading the past replies I see that this was addressed and added info for non-human though I still feel there should be some standard but that’s for another day.

OOC: Aren't 'Encourage' clauses supposed to provide more leeway to nations when it comes to compliance?

[Kravonija]

OOC: Aren't 'Encourage' clauses supposed to provide more leeway to nations when it comes to compliance?

Most likely, you might be right on that part. that part of my argument can be void. It seems like that blood type thing was addressed anyways.