Advertisement
by Laka Strolistandiler » Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:33 am
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Jedinsto » Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:02 am
Araraukar wrote:Jedinsto wrote:Missing in Action Soldier (herein MIA) as a member of a military organization who has not been confirmed as dead or alive by their own organization following an armed conflict with another military organization,
...
Requires member states to provide all known information on the status and/or details of the deaths of an MIA or POW when all three of the following conditions are met:
- Such information is available to the inquired member nation and can safely be provided,
- Such information is not available in the nation for which the MIA or POW served,
- Such information is requested by the nation for which the MIA or POW served.
OOC: Better, but, still, how's Nation B going to know Nation A has declared Soldier C as MIA?
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:27 am
by Jedinsto » Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:01 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I don't see the international utility of this, ambassador. The presence of unaccounted for soldiers missing in action is sad, but what do states care if Bigtopian soldiers are missing in action? At least prisoners of war are of concern insofar as their exchange may require facilitation, but extant law provides for relevant POW concerns."
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:05 pm
Jedinsto wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"I don't see the international utility of this, ambassador. The presence of unaccounted for soldiers missing in action is sad, but what do states care if Bigtopian soldiers are missing in action? At least prisoners of war are of concern insofar as their exchange may require facilitation, but extant law provides for relevant POW concerns."
"I find it to be morally unacceptable that families are left in the dark as to how their family member died serving their country,when such information is available.
This is an international issue, as it regards conflict between nations.
We have the ability to end this practice of withholding death details, and I wish to use it.
I am trying to make this as easy to comply with as possible, ambassador, so please bear with me."
OOC: Yeah yeah yeah, I know how much you dislike moralistic resolutions, but I like them quite a bit. This one especially. I feel that if it's easy enough to comply with, it can do no more harm than good as international law.
by Jedinsto » Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:56 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"This rationale is asinine, and bears about as much nuance as calling cows dogs because both have four legs and tails. This is not an international issue. It has articulated no issue of international concern. Nation A is entirely unaffected when Nation B withholds information from military families. This is clear in your writing, which mandates the use of identification tags (despite no international utility to such) and the dissemination of information to families.
"We have the ability to mandate all persons in the World Assembly swallow three ounces of purple glitter every day, ambassador. Having power does not itself justify use of said power.
"You've made a proposal that incentivizes treating MIA troopers as criminally absent without leave until such time as they demonstrate an excuse for their absence. You've made one that incentivizes nations to issue a canned excuse that no information on MIA soldiers is safe to share. You've also placed an onus on member states to investigate the conditions surrounding an enemy soldier who is missing in their territory. Congratulations, ambassador, you've done nothing with the 1600 characters you've used."
OOC: It can. The WA is better served doing literally nothing than it is passing fluff. It is odd that you'd admit to liking virtue signaling/ Far be it from me if you want to place yourself firmly in the same category as the folks who throw on filthy black leather vests and ride loud motorcycles with oversized flags strapped to them down public roads so they can pat themselves on the backs for it.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:07 pm
Jedinsto wrote:"You may be right on that point ambassador, but as a wise man once said, 'neglected civil rights is always an international issue,'" Ambassador DuBois says as he gives himself a pat on the back.
"I would say that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The reason that the WA is not going to mandate that all persons in the World Assembly swallow three ounces of glitter per day is that it would be- wait for it- incredibly stupid. When we have the power to secure neglected civil rights to our people, then it is justified to use such power. The World Assembly is the only means we have to secure this form of civil rights.
"And what you have suggested here is unenforceable and useless. One may call it incredibly stupid.""For the first point, how so? For the second point, saying something does not make it so. If the conditions are in fact safe to share the information, then not doing so is non-compliance. Seems simple enough to me. For the third point, some rewording and changes are in order."
"For the former, ambassador, treating a soldier as absent without leave is axiomatically different than missing in action, and triggers no reporting requirement. This saves overhead and recordkeeping. It is not always militarily valuable to retain information. It is sufficient to note that Sgt. Schmuckatelli died, for example. It is not generally militarily necessary to note that Sgt. Scmuckatelli died on Hill 32 at 1:11PM on April 43rd unless the sergeant was otherwise special or useful. Keeping that information requires unnecessary information gathering efforts and record keeping. So, too, does this proposal require militarily unnecessary information that states can save money and manpower on by ignoring.
"Secondly, states can argue, and nobody can effectively dispute, that any given information about troop disposition is itself essential to operational security. You are hard pressed to dispute that without information that is itself classified, and are, correspondingly, unable to bear your burden of proof to demonstrate a violation as a private actor. If you reverse that burden, you require the military to argue against itself and provide potentially sensitive information that cannot be retroactively contained. Bypassing this is laughably easy."OOC: I should have been more clear. I meant in this specific case, we are better off with an easy to comply with resolution covering this than no resolution covering this, in my opinion anyways.
OOC: I meant in this case, too.Also, Rolling Thunder is by no means what you say it is. Unless of course, all forms of protesting are done to pat oneself on the back. Rolling Thunder is a legitimate protest.
by Daarwyrth » Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:49 pm
Araraukar wrote:Jedinsto wrote:Missing in Action Soldier (herein MIA) as a member of a military organization who has not been confirmed as dead or alive by their own organization following an armed conflict with another military organization,
...
Requires member states to provide all known information on the status and/or details of the deaths of an MIA or POW when all three of the following conditions are met:
- Such information is available to the inquired member nation and can safely be provided,
- Such information is not available in the nation for which the MIA or POW served,
- Such information is requested by the nation for which the MIA or POW served.
OOC: Better, but, still, how's Nation B going to know Nation A has declared Soldier C as MIA?
by Bananaistan » Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:08 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:20 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by USG Security Corporation » Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:51 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:24 am
USG Security Corporation wrote:A middle aged Latina woman of average proportions, dressed in a modest suit, moved to a provided microphone. She sometimes visited the GA to observe, especially when given a heads up that there were WA resolutions being drafted that might effect her professional field.
"Thank you for hearing me today, esteemed representatives and delegates. My name is Graciella Nacimiento, I am the Director of the Legal Division of the Intexa, the support arm of the USG Security Corporation. In addition, I represent my fellow contractors from all private security, military and other recognized contractors in the industry, especially our fellow partners in the NS PMC Guild.
The reason for my intrusion is that those I represent want to be assured that private military contractors who are serving as ancillary, or auxiliaries of a national defense force, if you will, will be given the same treatment as a POW, and have that guaranteed in your resolution draft, that any other combatant would possess as their right as a POW. I understand the clause about war criminals, but this would be under the assumption that said contractor did not participate in war crimes. In your draft, it states a member of a 'military organization', and there is no mention of that military organization being controlled by a state or national entity, so may I assume that private contractors are then guaranteed those rights?"Sorry for intruding. I hope I'm doing this right and I'm not sure of the set up of the GA chamber as I don't usually post here. Please inform me via TG if I need to edit or delete.
by Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:45 am
by Honeydewistania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:54 am
Seeking to end the withholding of the death details of prisoners of war (POWs), and to establish a means of mediating prisoner exchanges,
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Jedinsto » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:05 am
USG Security Corporation wrote:A middle aged Latina woman of average proportions, dressed in a modest suit, moved to a provided microphone. She sometimes visited the GA to observe, especially when given a heads up that there were WA resolutions being drafted that might effect her professional field.
"Thank you for hearing me today, esteemed representatives and delegates. My name is Graciella Nacimiento, I am the Director of the Legal Division of the Intexa, the support arm of the USG Security Corporation. In addition, I represent my fellow contractors from all private security, military and other recognized contractors in the industry, especially our fellow partners in the NS PMC Guild.
The reason for my intrusion is that those I represent want to be assured that private military contractors who are serving as ancillary, or auxiliaries of a national defense force, if you will, will be given the same treatment as a POW, and have that guaranteed in your resolution draft, that any other combatant would possess as their right as a POW. I understand the clause about war criminals, but this would be under the assumption that said contractor did not participate in war crimes. In your draft, it states a member of a 'military organization', and there is no mention of that military organization being controlled by a state or national entity, so may I assume that private contractors are then guaranteed those rights?"
Trellania wrote:Dame Allania Trueblood walks in, carrying her normal pile of scrolls and accompanied by a very, very confused waitress from the bar.
"Wait, wasn't this the way to..." the waitress begins.
"You get used to it," Dame Allania replies, stopping to look over the proposal.
The knight frowns, sets the pile on a nearby table, pulls out a particular scroll, and opens it. Anyone who looks over her shoulder can see the scroll is a copy of WA #136. She then sighs, rolls the scroll back up, and turns to those here.
"While my nation would love to support this, I am forced to say I cannot because it conflicts with existing World Assembly legislation. WA #136 Convention On Wartime Deceased already has covered this topic, though it does not do so as strongly as I would prefer."
why
by Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:15 am
Jedinsto wrote:"Wrong."
OOC: My resolution does not include anything relating to proper burial, repatriation, or prohibiting desecration. There is no conflict here with that resolution, I checked to make sure several times before even posting this draft.
by Jedinsto » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:22 am
Trellania wrote:Jedinsto wrote:"Wrong."
OOC: My resolution does not include anything relating to proper burial, repatriation, or prohibiting desecration. There is no conflict here with that resolution, I checked to make sure several times before even posting this draft.
Dame Allania raises an eyebrow, unrolls the scroll, and looks at it. "I shall read aloud from the section in question. 'RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible.'" She then rolls up the scroll. "I fail to see how this, which mandates, does not conflict with that one, which only recommends."
OOC: Second-to-last line of text in the resolution in question actually does address repatriation of the deceased. Why it does so with such weak language, I do not know. But it's still there.
by Honeydewistania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:30 am
Short answer- Because.
Longer answer- a) so families can have closure as to what happened to their family members, and the nations that do bad things to their POWs can't hide their atrocities and b) because without real means of doing so, how can you guarantee that your troops are not about to be shit on upon showing up for the exchange?
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Jedinsto » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:33 am
Honeydewistania wrote:Short answer- Because.
Longer answer- a) so families can have closure as to what happened to their family members, and the nations that do bad things to their POWs can't hide their atrocities and b) because without real means of doing so, how can you guarantee that your troops are not about to be shit on upon showing up for the exchange?
If a nation is committing atrocities, they are most likely already violating WA law, so I don’t think they’d care much about adhering to his one, especially if it would help them.
Also, if you have agreed to meet with another party to exchange POWs, it should be your responsibility to ensure that all potential risks are handled. I don’t see how that’s the WA’s business at all.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:41 am
by Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:41 am
Jedinsto wrote:Trellania wrote:
Dame Allania raises an eyebrow, unrolls the scroll, and looks at it. "I shall read aloud from the section in question. 'RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible.'" She then rolls up the scroll. "I fail to see how this, which mandates, does not conflict with that one, which only recommends."
OOC: Second-to-last line of text in the resolution in question actually does address repatriation of the deceased. Why it does so with such weak language, I do not know. But it's still there.
"You misunderstand me. Where does my proposal cover repatriation?"
OOC: I know that convention of wartime deceased has repatriation, I'm saying that mine doesn't, and therefore there is no conflict.
Edit: OOC: I added "living" into the definition of POW exchanges for clarification.
by Jedinsto » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:42 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"This suffers from similar lack of focus as the last attempt, ambassador. I think a better approach is ensuring POW reporting to the WA, authorizing the WA to engage in various inspections of POW conditions, and barring retention of POWs following cessation of hostilities to the extent that the POW Accord does not make such accommodations. Mediation for exchanges is valuable, but not when parties have a military incentive not to negotiate."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic
Advertisement