Araraukar wrote:Maowi wrote:OOC: I'm tired now so hopefully my brain is working but I think that would be permitted under the current draft as long as they 'take them under their wing' without using violence?
OOC: Yeah, but your arguments made in the thread don't quite match the arguments made in the proposal. You keep saying protecting people going to and fro at the medical center is one of the aims of the proposal. Why? Why does that matter in the least if all you need to do to get medical attention, if you're a wounded soldier and the enemy is between you and the medical center, is to surrender and be taken as POV?
And yes I'm aware that wounded soldiers rarely do that unless they're, like, dying, which is kinda the point.
OOC: I don't think anything in the text right now prevents military forces from blocking a wounded soldier from accessing medical help subject to their surrendering, as long as they can do so non-violently. Wounded soldiers wouldn't completely be given a free pass. (Also, when you say POV are you saying prisoner of war??)
Active war zones are rarely as organized as either side would like, especially when there is an offensive (meaning, the frontline may be shifting rapidly) going on. Not bombing a military hospital that's only trying to keep wounded soldiers alive? Great idea! Not shooting wounded soldiers only trying to get medical attention? Great idea! Requiring mind-reading technology for a group of armed soldiers coming across a group of armed enemy soldiers to know they're actually trying to get a wounded teammate to the medical help, rather than trying to sneak around for a surprise attack from behind? Not a good idea.
So basically clause 4 would need the addition of "unarmed" to the bits how to make sure you're not targeting a medical help seekers, but I know that's likely considered an unreasonable request in an active warzone. Basically, how do you tell an active soldier and noncombatant apart, if they're both wearing the same kit and carrying the same weapons?
Attempting to solve this problem was the point of requiring the bearing of identifying symbols in order to qualify for protection. I realise it may be unrealistic in many situations but I can't think of a way of being less exclusive while, as you say, not requiring mind-reading technology.
As for reducing length, you use helluva lot of unnecessary repetition that you can cut easily.
Case in point, clause 4:4. Member nations’ military forces may not:
a. use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
b. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
c. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.
Rewritten:4. Member nations’ military forces may not:
a. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel or patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
b. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.
I will change that. I was just being paranoid about loopholes with using 'or', which always gets me in a muddle for some reason, but things like that will definitely help in terms of length.
Also, I know I gripe about committees, but this is a different kind of gripe: the ban to bomb medical centers shouldn't be a mere guideline in something the committee does, nor should you use that committee to give permissions for artillery fire/bombing runs.
I wanted to avoid using two different committees in the same proposal, but maybe that's nevessary here? When I reach a computer I'll look into pre-ed committees which I could use.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first point, though. The committee is supposed to help enforce the ban on bombing medical facilities, but to do so differently depending on the situation.
Thanks for all the feedback, anyway, it's very helpful to be able to run through these things with someone.