NationStates Jolt Archive

Civilian rights post war


Recognising war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.
Fully aware there is a standing resolution already protecting the rights of POWs.
Alarmed by the absence of protections for non-combatants living in an occupied nation after a war has ended, and the possible abuses that can and are being perpetrated against conquered civilians by invading nations.
Convinced measures are necessary for the protection and fair treatment of non-combatants not involved in the armed forces of any nation involved in the war.

A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group
- The invading nation must, immediately after cessation of hostilities, provide protection and security to the conquered civilian population against violence and looting.
- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

- No non-combatant, including government officials, will be subject to arrest without just cause, and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.
- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
- No non-combatants will be forcibly removed from their home or district and relocated unless such a move is necessary for their own safety in cases of unsafe structures, insurgent activity or other just reasons. They must be allowed to return as soon as possible after the problem is solved.

- The invading nation must rapidly restore medical services and hospitals within the conquered nation and provide medical aid to those non-combatants who require it.
- The invading nation must rapidly restore any essential services, including but not limited to water, sewerage, electricity and food distribution networks destroyed or disrupted because of the war.
- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.
- Any non-combatants drafted to assist the rebuilding must receive a wage equal to what the job is worth in either the conquered or invader nation, whichever is higher, in the currency being used in the conquered nation at the time they earn it.

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant by the invading nation.

This is my first attempt at a UN proposal and its only in the draft stage. I know the tital of it is not exactly great and I am trying to think up a better one.

I am looking for some feedback from the experienced members if anything is illegal or not clearly written and if any part should be fixed or changed to make it easier to understand.

Before anyone comes to point out loopholes, gaps and the rest*, let me just say: Well done for finding an original idea. There's been a dearth as of late, with most of the discussions focussing on what werapons are and aren't allowed in UN nations.

* And they will find them. However, that doesn't mean you don't have a good idea, it will probably just need to be fine-tuned a bit.

I know about some of the loopholes believe me :D.

I did have a few of them plugged but was beaten by the character limit and had to trim it down a fair bit. Just for clarification, the limit is 3,500 characters with spaces?

I agree with Enn. It may need cleaning up a bit, but it's an original idea, something I don't have the pleasure of seeing very often.

I would recommend taking the comments of your fellow members seriously but not personally, because as Enn pointed out there will be problems with it. That's okay, really. All resolutions have problems, and there's really no way of getting around having loopholes here and there. Just keep working at it, and don't be overly surprised if I end up voting against it. I vote against 95% of resolutions, so it's nothing personal. :)

I know about some of the loopholes believe me :D.

I did have a few of them plugged but was beaten by the character limit and had to trim it down a fair bit. Just for clarification, the limit is 3,500 characters with spaces?

More like 3,200, according to my sources.

Civilian rights post war


Recognising war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.
Fully aware there is a standing resolution already protecting the rights of POWs.
Alarmed by the absence of protections for non-combatants living in an occupied nation after a war has ended, and the possible abuses that can and are being perpetrated against conquered civilians by invading nations.

I honestly thought telling them they had this list of rights was okay:

1. You have the right to die. Feel free to use this right at any time.

2. You have the right to shut up and do what we tell you. This right cannot be willingly given up and is only revoked at your death. Attempting to give this right up results in it being revoked.

3. The guys with guns are now your gods. Worship them or we revoke right #2.

I find it to be very fair to conquered peoples.

Convinced measures are necessary for the protection and fair treatment of non-combatants not involved in the armed forces of any nation involved in the war.

Fair means "treated equally," right? So far, our list of rights is good.

A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Me likey.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group
- The invading nation must, immediately after cessation of hostilities, provide protection and security to the conquered civilian population against violence and looting.
- No non-combatant will beprevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

- No non-combatant, including government officials, will be subject to arrest without just cause, and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.
- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
- No non-combatants will be forcibly removed from their home or district and relocated unless such a move is necessary for their own safety in cases of unsafe structures, insurgent activity or other just reasons. They must be allowed to return as soon as possible after the problem is solved.

- The invading nation must rapidly restore medical services and hospitals within the conquered nation and provide medical aid to those non-combatants who require it.
- The invading nation must rapidly restore any essential services, including but not limited to water, sewerage, electricity and food distribution networks destroyed or disrupted because of the war.
- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.
- Any non-combatants drafted to assist the rebuilding must receive a wage equal to what the job is worth in either the conquered or invader nation, whichever is higher, in the currency being used in the conquered nation at the time they earn it.

Actually, pretty good. Won't stop abuse, but there's nothing much that can.

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant by the invading nation.

Hmm. I was going to say to remove this, but on second thought I advise keeping it.

More like 3,200, according to my sources.

Oh dear. More trimming will be needed then. I think I'm on 3,370 now. I'll have a look and find something to chop.

Thanks to all of you for the comments so far. This has had a better first reaction than I thought it would :).

DLE replied and you can still sit without wincing...
I'd say you've done a bang up job for a first outing.

Seconded. Very nice job, Waterana. We're eager to see the revision, but we will most likely be supporting this as it is our national policy to support all reasonable humanitarian resolutions (and yeah, we choose what is reasonable, so that's just a spinnish way of saying we support what we wanna support).

This is the revised version. Its now under the 3,200 characters (with 2 to spare) limit.

I did add another no no after reading DLE's comments :).

Can't think of a better title so will stay with the one in place.

For catagory and strength, I was thinking "human rights" and "strong" perhaps. Am not too sure about the strength because I didn't have room to put any punishments in.

Civilian rights post war

Recognising war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.
Fully aware there is a standing resolution already protecting the rights of POWs.
Alarmed by the absence of protections for non-combatants living in an occupied nation after a war has ended, and the possible abuses that can and are being perpetrated against conquered civilians by invading nations.
Convinced measures are necessary for the protection and fair treatment of non-combatants not involved in the armed forces of any nation involved in the war.

A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group
- The invading nation must, immediately after cessation of hostilities, provide protection and security to the conquered civilian population against violence and looting.
- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

- No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution.
- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.
- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
- No non-combatants will be forcibly removed from their home or district and relocated unless such a move is necessary for their own safety in cases of unsafe structures, insurgent activity or other just reasons. They must be allowed to return as soon as possible after the problem is solved.

- The invading nation must rapidly restore medical services and hospitals within the conquered nation and provide medical aid to those non-combatants who require it.
- The invading nation must rapidly restore any essential services, including but not limited to water, sewerage, electricity and food distribution networks destroyed or disrupted because of the war.
- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.
- Any non-combatants drafted to assist the rebuilding must be paid a fair wage for their work.

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant.

I would have little hesitation in endorsing this proposal as it stands. That said, the following paragraph leaves me uneasy:

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant by the invading nation.
I recognise that it's necessary and do not object to its conclusion, but I worry a little that it may legitimise repressive state actions against insurgents, irredentists (or however one wishes to define them). I freely admit that I have less respect for state integrity than most delegates round these parts.

One small suggestion: the formatting is such that the proposal is suffering a little from 'bulk text syndrome'. If there's a more elegant way of presenting the proposal, I recommend you take it (that said, formatting is not an Ecopoeian strong point - witness the problems with our Freedom of Conscience draft).

I wish you the very best of luck.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Oh dear. More trimming will be needed then. I think I'm on 3,370 now. I'll have a look and find something to chop.

Thanks to all of you for the comments so far. This has had a better first reaction than I thought it would :).

What, you thought I would decry it because of...that thing?

I'll have you know that I do occasionally get through a thread without mentioning national sovereignty.

Oh dear. I just said it, didn't I? :D

I've just submitted this proposal (despite the laggy server :D).

Could any delegates who like it endorse it please :).

Ecopoeia, I can understand your concern with that line. I aren't too happy about it myself but put it in to plug a loophole that could have seen complaints about insurgents or terrorists (I really hate that word) committing murder and then claiming to be non-combatants under this and escaping or reducing punishments.

I fixed the formatting a little but didn't want the proposal to appear to be very long. That can put some people of reading it properly :).

Texan Hotrodders, I have only one thing to say about your post....:D:D

Endorsed.

Mr. Secretary-General, I announce that this proposal now has 191 endorsements and has reached the resolution queue. For the record, it is in the category of "Human Rights" with a strength of "Strong".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

It passed on its second try. Now I know exactly what is meant by the talk about the amount of hard work it takes to get a proposal enough support :D.

I'd like to give a big thankyou to all the delegates who endorsed it, and an extra big thanks to those who endorsed it twice :).

Congratulations to Reformentia as well. I was watching your proposals endorsement count almost as closly as I was watching my own. Glad it made it :).

I have a a few things you might want to concider with respect to the resolution:

Northern Ireland
Iraq
Afganistan

I worry that our forces in the real world are already stifled by laws that really don't have any place in an army.

While I agree for the most part with your resolution you say we cannot search a child; the last time I checked that was a person under 18. However we know that extreamists (in the real world, but I see no reason why this shouldn't happen in NS too) brainwash children into believe that by becoming a suicide bomber they can go to heaven etc.

Now this is probabily not going to be a major thing. However it is limitation of the current resolution

I have a a few things you might want to concider with respect to the resolution:

Northern Ireland
Iraq
Afganistan

I worry that our forces in the real world are already stifled by laws that really don't have any place in an army.

While I agree for the most part with your resolution you say we cannot search a child; the last time I checked that was a person under 18. However we know that extreamists (in the real world, but I see no reason why this shouldn't happen in NS too) brainwash children into believe that by becoming a suicide bomber they can go to heaven etc.

Now this is probabily not going to be a major thing. However it is limitation of the current resolution

I understand your concern about this and believe me I did think very carefully about the concequences before putting that part about the children in. I did and still do expect to hear a fair bit against that.

The reason I finally included it was because this proposal is aimed at protections for the civilians, not the invading army. They are armed professionals who can look after themselves. I just couldn't stand the thought of war traumatised children being patted down by soldiers wearing the uniform of the army that not long before was trying to kill them and their families. I didn't put an age in the proposal because of the pandoras box that opens with different NS races, but I personally consider a human child to be 13 or under.

As for the extemists, if they've taken up arms against the invading nation (and I would consider brainwashing, training and equiping "terrorists" as taking up arms) then they're not covered by this and the invading nation is free to deal with them as they see fit.

As for the extemists, if they've taken up arms against the invading nation (and I would consider brainwashing, training and equiping "terrorists" as taking up arms) then they're not covered by this and the invading nation is free to deal with them as they see fit.

How do the soldiers know that they are terrorists? Remember they can't search them without due cause so how can they tell they are about to get a gun out and kill people or blow themselves up.

The reason I finally included it was because this proposal is aimed at protections for the civilians, not the invading army. They are armed professionals who can look after themselves.

Lifeguards and other life-saving professionals are told to put their safety first, eg. a life guard has swam out to a drowning child near a pier, as the life guard reaches the child a wave forces them towards a support of the pier. The guard then puts the child between themself and the support. The reason being is that is the life guard is hurt then they both die. Now I think the same can be applied here; if the soldiers care hurt/killed who is going to protect the civilians.

Remember these soldiers are in a hostile country, not a police force in a friendly one. Soldiers are trained to stay alive, not in policing.

How do the soldiers know that they are terrorists? Remember they can't search them without due cause so how can they tell they are about to get a gun out and kill people or blow themselves up.

That is something the invading army will have to think ahead and find solutions to within the limits of the rest of the proposal. Like I said before this proposal deals with protecting the civilians from the invading army, not the other way around. If the situation is so dangerous then the invading army don't have to be in the conquered nation. They are foreign occupiers after all. In the NationStates world the war could have had many different causes and the invaders could well be ruthless, expansionist, power hungry thugs who were responsible for starting the war in the first place.

Lifeguards and other life-saving professionals are told to put their safety first, eg. a life guard has swam out to a drowning child near a pier, as the life guard reaches the child a wave forces them towards a support of the pier. The guard then puts the child between themself and the support. The reason being is that is the life guard is hurt then they both die. Now I think the same can be applied here; if the soldiers care hurt/killed who is going to protect the civilians.

Remember these soldiers are in a hostile country, not a police force in a friendly one. Soldiers are trained to stay alive, not in policing.

You seem to be only equating my proposal with the RL situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. While I was writing this, many different conflicts were running around my head from WW2 to Iraq, and what I wrote is a combination of all of them. This isn't meant to apply to the real world however. Its meant to apply to the NationStates world. The soldiers aren't a focus of this proposal. I'm a lot more interested in protecting civilians from trigger happy soldiers who shoot first "just in case".

Civilian Rights Post War
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Waterana

Description:
Recognising war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.

Fully aware there is a standing resolution already protecting the rights of POWs.

Alarmed by the absence of protections for non-combatants living in an occupied nation after a war has ended, and the possible abuses that can and are being perpetrated against conquered civilians by invading nations.

Convinced measures are necessary for the protection and fair treatment of non-combatants not involved in the armed forces of any nation involved in the war.

A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group
- The invading nation must, immediately after cessation of hostilities, provide protection and security to the conquered civilian population against violence and looting.
- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

- No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution.
- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.
- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
- No non-combatants will be forcibly removed from their home or district and relocated unless such a move is necessary for their own safety in cases of unsafe structures, insurgent activity or other just reasons. They must be allowed to return as soon as possible after the problem is solved.

- The invading nation must rapidly restore medical services and hospitals within the conquered nation and provide medical aid to those non-combatants who require it.
- The invading nation must rapidly restore any essential services, including but not limited to water, sewerage, electricity and food distribution networks destroyed or disrupted because of the war.
- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.
- Any non-combatants drafted to assist the rebuilding must be paid a fair wage for their work.

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant.

I'm voting no on this resolution, due to the last clauses - while attempting the above clauses is part of standard Republic of Lanquassia Military Procedure for invading foreign countries (Not... that we've had a chance to actually USE them), but I do not feel comfertable with the UN forcing me to do so, especially with the Lanquassian economy as fragile as it is.

Also, it allows no elasticity for the concept of fanatics who can easily melt away into the crowd of 'non-combatants', or the idea of suicide bombers who easily can plan their attacks for well up to the time they actually commity the suicide bombing.

Also not taken into account is the horror of the use of children in war, something which I shudder to mention, but would be forced to face should the Lanquassian military be inadequate to stop a force from invading.

All in all, Lanquassia votes no.

I must agree with Lanquassia.

While admirable in its aims, the resolution gives no room for the invading country to deal with a resistance, nor does it take into consideration that there is a very flexible definition of "just cause".

Plus, the resolution expects too much of the invading nation. Rebuilding homes is not part of "protection and security", and should not be required. And what about implementing these goals if there is a sustained low-intensity conflict? Should people be forced to wait until the last shot of a 20-year-long war is fired before their conquerors protect them from looting and search them with just cause? Of course not.

I say we vote against it based on this clause:
Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.

That last part, what is to prevent resistance organizations from using children then as couriers, bombs, ect. since the occupiying force could not search them. Just imagine Libertians sending in peace keepers on a UN mission and finding them selves being blown to pieces by children because we can not search them.......

Lanquassia is right.
Invading countries should be allowed to search people. We should also be able to search houses in case of rebels.

The idea has merit but it has great gaping holes open to interpetation. The wording of this would almost make you improve the country past it previous condition before the war started. If you are called into the war during the middle out of self-defense and end up taking the war to their home country to put a stop to it, Why rebuild them if your not going to occupy them? This bill doesnt cover enough possibilities.

Get attacked, demolish them for attacking you, then rebuild them after you go home?? not hardly.

Searches of children should be permitted where there is just cause.

I firmly stand in defense of this resolution and applaud it's author for his intentions.
While admirable in its aims, the resolution gives no room for the invading country to deal with a resistance, nor does it take into consideration that there is a very flexible definition of "just cause".Personally I think that any possible ambiguitiy of "just cause" works in favour to the cases (suicide bombers, fanatics, etc) presented by Lanquassia.

Plus, the resolution expects too much of the invading nation. Rebuilding homes is not part of "protection and security", and should not be required. And what about implementing these goals if there is a sustained low-intensity conflict? Putting it simply... that's the real price of war. It's often forgotten when it comes to the invading nations, and I feel that these duties and responsabilities should be imposed upon all UN members involved in war.

Should people be forced to wait until the last shot of a 20-year-long war is fired before their conquerors protect them from looting and search them with just cause? Of course not.Maybe they shouldn't... but I fail to see how voting against this resolution helps there chances of being protected. Besides... this resolution does not strictly forbid an invading nation to provide such services before the war has concluded.

Just imagine Libertians sending in peace keepers on a UN mission and finding them selves being blown to pieces by children because we can not search them.......If children are being trained as suicide bombers, than there is still a war going on albeit on a guerrilla warfare basis, thus freeing the invading nation from any obligation to obey this resolution and helping the conquered nation rebuild.

Therefore it is in the interest of the conquered nation not to employ these dispicable tactics and the passing of this resolution will in my opinion drastically reduce the occurance of post-war resistance.


I vote Yes to this proposal.

Get attacked, demolish them for attacking you, then rebuild them after you go home?? not hardly.Once again... that's the price of war. I needn't bring RL examples in here.

The intent of this proposal is admirable. It was carefully crafted. We are concerned, though, with the requirement that the occupying nation rebuild homes and businesses. Repairing the essential infrastructure and providing shelter is a necessity, but we think this requirement goes too far. Should the occupying nation be required to rebuild the Duke of Whatever's summer palace, the mega-Walmart and the Blockbuster store?

This response was posted following a similar comment:

Putting it simply... that's the real price of war. It's often forgotten when it comes to the invading nations, and I feel that these duties and responsabilities should be imposed upon all UN members involved in war.


We believe that this view presupposes two things: that the occupying nation was the aggressor, and therefore should shoulder blame for the war, and that the occupying nation has escaped relatively unharmed. Let us pose a hypothetical case:

We suffer an unprovoked attack by Nation X. Our national infrastructure is badly damaged and our economy is devastated. In order to subdue the attacker, we are forced to invade and occupy considerable territory on our common border. We try our best to target only military targets, but several large tracts of luxury homes and a dozen up-scale shopping centers are destroyed by Nation X's army as they try to block our advance. Is it equitable to expect us to rebuild them, as this resolution would require?

We look forward to further debate on this issue.

I'm glad that this has finally become a debate that is a question of beliefs and not semantics. I am truly relieved for that.

We believe that this view [My view] presupposes two things: that the occupying nation was the aggressor, and therefore should shoulder blame for the war, It's not so much shouldering the blame as it is taking up the responsabilities when occupying new territory. And in war both sides involved are aggressors at one point or another.
and that the occupying nation has escaped relatively unharmed.I don't see how this resolution presupposes that or that it should matter. War is war.


Let us pose a hypothetical case:

We suffer an unprovoked attack by Nation X. Our national infrastructure is badly damaged and our economy is devastated. In order to subdue the attacker, we are forced to invade and occupy considerable territory on our common border. We try our best to target only military targets, but several large tracts of luxury homes and a dozen up-scale shopping centers are destroyed by Nation X's army as they try to block our advance. Is it equitable to expect us to rebuild them, as this resolution would require?War seldomly has a negative efect on the victorious nation. However I will reluctantly compare your hypothetical case with a real life case. On 9/11 America suffered an unprovoked attack. The American economy has struggled since then and lower Manhattan was devastated.

America since then has invaded and overthrown Afghanistan and Iraq.
America has also aided the reconstruction of both nations.

I agree with Lanquassia too. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

what about sexual orientation? no protection there? just another flaw...

what about sexual orientation? no protection there? just another flaw...No matter what the sexual orientation of the individual is... he will either be included in a combatant status or a non combatant status.
If you still feel this is a flaw... I ask, How does voting against this resolution help to protect freedom of sexual orientation in occupied nations?

Putting it simply... that's the real price of war. It's often forgotten when it comes to the invading nations, and I feel that these duties and responsabilities should be imposed upon all UN members involved in war.

I vote Yes to this proposal.

The Confederated City States of Mikitivity reviewed the resolution while it was in queue to reach the UN floor, and agrees with the position stated by Canada6.

I'm going to attempt to answer some of these points. Please be aware though its 2am here and I'm typing under the influcence of a bad cold and "makes you drowsy" cold medicine.

I say we vote against it based on this clause:
Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.

That last part, what is to prevent resistance organizations from using children then as couriers, bombs, ect. since the occupiying force could not search them. Just imagine Libertians sending in peace keepers on a UN mission and finding them selves being blown to pieces by children because we can not search them.......

I explained my reason behind the child searches in an earlier post in this thread (thankyou to the mod responsible for merging the threads :))


The idea has merit but it has great gaping holes open to interpetation. The wording of this would almost make you improve the country past it previous condition before the war started. If you are called into the war during the middle out of self-defense and end up taking the war to their home country to put a stop to it, Why rebuild them if your not going to occupy them? This bill doesnt cover enough possibilities.

Get attacked, demolish them for attacking you, then rebuild them after you go home?? not hardly.

You aren't responsible to rebuild anything if you aren't going to occupy them. This resolution only applies to those invader nation in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities. If your armies aren't there, then you aren't responsible for the rebuilding.


The intent of this proposal is admirable. It was carefully crafted. We are concerned, though, with the requirement that the occupying nation rebuild homes and businesses. Repairing the essential infrastructure and providing shelter is a necessity, but we think this requirement goes too far. Should the occupying nation be required to rebuild the Duke of Whatever's summer palace, the mega-Walmart and the Blockbuster store?

We believe that this view presupposes two things: that the occupying nation was the aggressor, and therefore should shoulder blame for the war, and that the occupying nation has escaped relatively unharmed. Let us pose a hypothetical case:

We suffer an unprovoked attack by Nation X. Our national infrastructure is badly damaged and our economy is devastated. In order to subdue the attacker, we are forced to invade and occupy considerable territory on our common border. We try our best to target only military targets, but several large tracts of luxury homes and a dozen up-scale shopping centers are destroyed by Nation X's army as they try to block our advance. Is it equitable to expect us to rebuild them, as this resolution would require?

We look forward to further debate on this issue.

This proposal doesn't give a tinkers toss who was the agressor, which is why its focus is protection of innocent civilians not involved in the armies of either side. It could well be your nation which was attacked and defeated. These measures would then be protecting your own people. If you read my points about the rebuilding also, it applies to those structures etc damaged or destroyed because of the war. Thats the price of victory. The winner not only gets the glory but the responsibilties that come with looking after the innocents caught up in the conflict.

Maybe they shouldn't... but I fail to see how voting against this resolution helps there chances of being protected. Besides... this resolution does not strictly forbid an invading nation to provide such services before the war has concluded.

Based on the experiences of the International Red Cross in Neo Tyr, we feel that a resolution of this sort would help protect non-combatants.

The winner not only gets the glory but the responsibilties that come with looking after the innocents caught up in the conflict.Exactly. Furthermore a nation that quotes Gandhi on it's sig will more often than not, get my support. :D

Exactly. Furthermore a nation that quotes Gandhi on it's sig will more often than not, get my support. :D

Thanks Canada6. I appreciate your help and support :).

This proposal doesn't give a tinkers toss who was the agressor, which is why its focus is protection of innocent civilians not involved in the armies of either side. It could well be your nation which was attacked and defeated. These measures would then be protecting your own people. If you read my points about the rebuilding also, it applies to those structures etc damaged or destroyed because of the war. Thats the price of victory. The winner not only gets the glory but the responsibilties that come with looking after the innocents caught up in the conflict.
Well stated Waterana. Yelda has cast its vote FOR this resolution. You have our unconditional support.

Why not just kill them all

Why not just kill them all
Why not help them rebuild their infrastructure and society, thus turning a bitter eneny into an ally. Imagine what RL earth would look like today if the allied powers had destroyed Germany, Italy and Japan and then just went home offering no aid or assistance to them.

We do have some objections to the proposed resolution.

First of all, we disagree with the notion that "war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world." we believe that the UN is an institution that is comitted to preventing war, and that accepting that war is "inevitable" is a grave mistake and a defeat for the that is the UN. This alone makes us wary of supporting this resolution.

Secondly, it is the understanding of the Holy Empire of Gravlen that once peace has been decleared and an occupation is in place, the occupant is required to treat non-combatants living in an occupied nation according to international law and with the same rights as the nations citizens. As such, we do not see the need for this particular resolution.

Thirdly, the part stating that "No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution" is, in our view, filled with good intentions, but would be better if it read "No person will be subjected to summary execution". We fail to see that this should apply exclusively to non-combatants.

Fourthly, the part stating that "Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police" troubles us. Partly because it is unclear if the police may be male. Partly because it does not specify that searches of men must be carried out by men. This concerns us since some cultures, though not ours, will see it as an offence and humiliating act for a woman to physically search a man.
Finally, this part, together with the part stating that "No such searches of children are permitted", will grant the inhabitants of occupied nations greater rights than ordinary civillians and citizens. We do not se the need for this.

On the other hand, this resolution does have some merit and good intentions, and we can understand that some occupied nations need better protection against the horrible actions we see other nations armies perform agains their former enemies, no doubt due to a lack of discipline unlike one will find in the Holy Imperial Army of Gravlen.

As such, the empire has not yet decided it's vote.

All Hail!

Thor Lynson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

While I take issue with the resolution on the protection of children from search (I have much less of an issue in imagining a child getting searched), and I feel this resolution assumes that all nations have female soldiers, I will vote for it because these issues are minor in comparison with protecting the rights of civilians. I will, however, suggest that should this be defeated on the floor (which I suspect is unlikely judging from initial support), these points be considered and perhaps a revision made.

This is an a good idea, but it is not perfect... what if the civilians are members of a group such as Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? They will resist until the end...

You have the support of the Ganchelkean States

This is an a good idea, but it is not perfect... what if the civilians are members of a group such as Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? They will resist until the end...The final clause of the resolution deals with this.
Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant.

Ecopoeia supports this resolution, but our vote will depend on our region's wishes.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I sincerely approve this resolution. It pleases me that even if my peaceful land is ever invaded that my people, the heart of the nation, will be protected from unjust treatment. Great proposal.

For. This resolution has been a breath of fresh air, as recently the UN has become bogged down with Nat Sov issues, and had started to bore me a bit. As such, it is nice to find a resolution that, for the most part, we can all agree on. :)

Deffinitely for this resolution. All human beings need to be treated as such, no matter what the circumstances.

Under this Resolution, you could give a kid dynamite and and tell them to go to a crowded building, and the police could do NOTHING to stop them... Until thats fixed, I'll never support this.

Under this Resolution, you could give a kid dynamite and and tell them to go to a crowded building, and the police could do NOTHING to stop them... Until thats fixed, I'll never support this.

While this is an unlikely situation, we agree that the provision preventing seaching of children should be removed. If children are allowed to slip through security nets, adults will use them as a tool for smuggling and possibly, to infiltrate vital security areas and engage in combat or suicide bombings. We have cast our vote against this proposal, and will only change it if this provision is removed.

I think the proposed Civilian Post-War Rights bill is interesting, and contains a GREAT number of VERY good ideas and/or points... but there are things that just won't working for me. Saying that there will be no "unjustified" searches, whether of persons or properties, begs the question what is a justified search? Who will make the difference known? What happens if you have an unjustified search that uncovers an underground organization planning a massive bomb attack, is the evidence dismissed? Who will control certain people in high positions, who may start taking kickbacks in order to judge some incriminating search of a high official (or a billionaire) "unjustified"?
Body searches of non-combattants are not allowed. Who knows for sure whether someone is a combatant or not? And searches of children are illegal? Doesn't that make the door WIDE OPEN for child soldiers?
"No arrests are allowed without just cause" Again, what is just cause? And if you're in a nation that is simply brimming with turmoil, do you really have time to dance around the issue so much when you may have every reason (except for concrete proof) that someone is guilty of a crime? Do you really want to risk it, when the potential for harm because of inaction is so great?
"No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving" Again, how do you make sure someone is a non-combatant? For the love of God, some of these nations have billions of people! Are you going to track every single one of them, constantly updating their "combatant" or "non-combatant" status? Haven't you people ever heard of a SECRET organization? I thought the whole "secret" thing was to prevent from people finding out that they're blowing stuff up...

All these issues, and I barely scanned the topic... I think there need to be a great many revisions and less chance for misinterpretation that will cost us as much as it costs the invaded area. Think about it.

Today, the Armed Republic of Adoxography (or Artfully Veiled Insults) votes against. I'm not risking the lives of my well-trained military because of some naive dream where far-away people seem to have their military status stamped on their forehead.

Who will control certain people in high positions, who may start taking kickbacks in order to judge some incriminating search of a high official (or a billionaire) "unjustified"?
Are you talking here about corruption amongst your own officials? If so, how can you possibly expect the resolution to cover that?
Body searches of non-combattants are not allowed. Who knows for sure whether someone is a combatant or not? And searches of children are illegal? Doesn't that make the door WIDE OPEN for child soldiers?
"No arrests are allowed without just cause" Again, what is just cause? And if you're in a nation that is simply brimming with turmoil, do you really have time to dance around the issue so much when you may have every reason (except for concrete proof) that someone is guilty of a crime? Do you really want to risk it, when the potential for harm because of inaction is so great?
"No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving" Again, how do you make sure someone is a non-combatant? For the love of God, some of these nations have billions of people! Are you going to track every single one of them, constantly updating their "combatant" or "non-combatant" status? Haven't you people ever heard of a SECRET organization? I thought the whole "secret" thing was to prevent from people finding out that they're blowing stuff up....
I think it is to be assumed that this Resolution covers the time after the war has ended. If you have an ongoing insurgency organized by members of the former regime then you are still at war. I direct you to a quote from The Resolution:
A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….
The Yeldan military prides itself on its professionalism. What possible reason could you have to needlessly torment the citizens of a defeated opponent. Yelda is already in compliance with the resolution and it has not even passed yet.
Edit: BLAST these damnable Jolt servers and their database errors!

We do have some objections to the proposed resolution.

First of all, we disagree with the notion that "war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world." we believe that the UN is an institution that is comitted to preventing war, and that accepting that war is "inevitable" is a grave mistake and a defeat for the that is the UN. This alone makes us wary of supporting this resolution.

War has, is and will happen. That is just a fact of life. No matter how committed the UN is to peace, rogue nations will always exist within the UN and those nations will prey on weaker neighbours. Then you will get nations invading other nations for a multitude of reasons.

Secondly, it is the understanding of the Holy Empire of Gravlen that once peace has been decleared and an occupation is in place, the occupant is required to treat non-combatants living in an occupied nation according to international law and with the same rights as the nations citizens. As such, we do not see the need for this particular resolution.

Great to hear :).
Thing is though, not all UN nations follow those sort of protocols.

Thirdly, the part stating that "No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution" is, in our view, filled with good intentions, but would be better if it read "No person will be subjected to summary execution". We fail to see that this should apply exclusively to non-combatants.

Its because this resolution only deals with non-combatants or civilians.

Fourthly, the part stating that "Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police" troubles us. Partly because it is unclear if the police may be male. Partly because it does not specify that searches of men must be carried out by men. This concerns us since some cultures, though not ours, will see it as an offence and humiliating act for a woman to physically search a man.
Finally, this part, together with the part stating that "No such searches of children are permitted", will grant the inhabitants of occupied nations greater rights than ordinary civillians and citizens. We do not se the need for this.

About the searches question, I answered it in this post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220861&postcount=6)

What rights your own citizens have and whether those rights are greater or lower than the rights an invading army are expected to give conquered non-combatants doesn't matter as far as this resolution is concerned. These people aren't your citizens and living in an occupied nation have no rights at all except those the invading army choses to give them, which in some cases would be none at all. This resolution simply seeks to give rights and protections to ordinary men, women and children who weren't involved in fighting the war.

Under this Resolution, you could give a kid dynamite and and tell them to go to a crowded building, and the police could do NOTHING to stop them... Until thats fixed, I'll never support this.
While this is an unlikely situation, we agree that the provision preventing seaching of children should be removed. If children are allowed to slip through security nets, adults will use them as a tool for smuggling and possibly, to infiltrate vital security areas and engage in combat or suicide bombings. We have cast our vote against this proposal, and will only change it if this provision is removed.
I'll refer both of you to a post by the resolution auther, found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9198824&postcount=19), which offers a very good explanation of the reasons for protecting children under this resolution.

Regarding the child bomb argument:

1) If the child has the stick of dynamite in the open - he not a non-combatant

2) If he's got it in his pocket - I hope they can see it and ask him to take it out (in which case - see the above comment). Sure they can't SEARCH him - but they can ask him to empty his pockets.

You'd pretty much have to tape it to his leg (though I think that would still be obvious) - as him carrying it in a backpack - the backpack could be searched.

I dont see why someone would come up with something. It goes along the lines of no searching civillian houses? SO you just want a terrorist to go to a civillian house and use it as a wepons base? We cant do anything about it because it is a civillain establishment... someone lives there. That(among other)reason is why this bill should not be passed.

So... as you can tell, You dont have the support of King Schmidty. I agree with Adoxography that we should not risk the lives of our well trained Millitary Personel. King Schmidty takes pride in its Millitary Forces and we vote against you 100 fold. This is a horrible idea and if it is passed... I will counter it with a seperate petition. Please send endorsements to King Schmidty. If you do... I will counter this bill.

Yelda notes that, so far, most of the opposition to this resolution is coming from nations which are not exactly "superpowers". We support the resolution largely because we have a professional and well-trained military.

I dont see why someone would come up with something. It goes along the lines of no searching civillian houses? SO you just want a terrorist to go to a civillian house and use it as a wepons base? We cant do anything about it because it is a civillain establishment... someone lives there. That(among other)reason is why this bill should not be passed.

The resolution says you can't search private houses without just cause. If you think armed militants are hiding in a civilian's house then you have just cause to search it, and just cause to arrest anyone found within using it as a weapons base. This resolution only protects unarmed civilians, not insurgents, terrorists or anyone else armed and seeking confrontation with the invading nation.

I admire the intent of this resolution.

However, I believe that it has one pervasive ambiguity that will compel me to vote against it: This resolution fails to adequately define a non-combatant.

Yes, obviously anyone involved in armed and/or violent conflict does not qualify. But what about spies, those who aren't officially members of the military? Those who knowingly and willfully manufacture the weapons used in armed combat? Those who knowingly and willfully incite others to violence?

And it's all fine and good for anyone who wants to clarify that now, but I can see how two separate nations, each relatively free of ulterior motives, could interpret the resolution in vastly different ways with respect to these people. Unless the wording is clear in the original resolution, I'm afraid I must vote against it, and I will attempt to convince my region to do likewise.

Greetings.

We of Roathin find one particular clause troublesome. It is the clause on repair of infrastructure, which on its own is tolerable, but which then descends into mischief by including homes, schools and businesses.

Whereas some might find it humanitarian to force the victor to rebuild what he has wantonly destroyed, we consider this to be incitement to use weaponry that is non-lethal to buildings. We refer to that heinous and UN-approved weapon of mass destruction known as the 'enhanced radiation device' (colloquially, a 'neutron bomb'). This device has a small blast radius confined to hundreds of yards, but is able to kill people without significantly damaging infrastructure within a much larger radius.

The ERD can be deployed as a battlefield tactical munition, which can be delivered by high-calibre howitzer if necessary. Because of its surgical properties, it can be argued that it is a 'necessary' weapon, with unparalleled ability to debilitate invading armour with minimal damage to one's own infrastructure - and without the use of a complex delivery system such as an aircraft, submarine, or strategic launch vehicle.

We believe in war reparations as a decent alternative. This legislation should be amended. We suspect, however, that it may be too late for this. Accordingly, we are forced to divert resources from national health to neutron absorption field research.

This argument was first presented to the UNOG.

Greetings.

We of Roathin find one particular clause troublesome. It is the clause on repair of infrastructure, which on its own is tolerable, but which then descends into mischief by including homes, schools and businesses.

Whereas some might find it humanitarian to force the victor to rebuild what he has wantonly destroyed, we consider this to be incitement to use weaponry that is non-lethal to buildings. We refer to that heinous and UN-approved weapon of mass destruction known as the 'enhanced radiation device' (colloquially, a 'neutron bomb'). This device has a small blast radius confined to hundreds of yards, but is able to kill people without significantly damaging infrastructure within a much larger radius.

The ERD can be deployed as a battlefield tactical munition, which can be delivered by high-calibre howitzer if necessary. Because of its surgical properties, it can be argued that it is a 'necessary' weapon, with unparalleled ability to debilitate invading armour with minimal damage to one's own infrastructure - and without the use of a complex delivery system such as an aircraft, submarine, or strategic launch vehicle.

We believe in war reparations as a decent alternative. This legislation should be amended. We suspect, however, that it may be too late for this. Accordingly, we are forced to divert resources from national health to neutron absorption field research.

This argument was first presented to the UNOG.

Meh. We're not concerned over the cost of replacing homes and schools. Rebuilding the bridges, freeways, dams and other infrastructure is what will be expensive. As for the businesses...well, I guess one could seize the land under eminent domain, compensate the former owner, then build a park on it ("it' being the land, not the former owner). This would depend on whether or not you wanted the business to even reopen.
On the subject of "ERD's", we are not fond of them mainly because of the prohibitive costs involved in maintaining them. The short half-life of Tritium requires that you constantly replace them, every 12 years or so I believe. They are just not a cost effective weapon and therefore not a serious consideration.

Meh. We're not concerned over the cost of replacing homes and schools. Rebuilding the bridges, freeways, dams and other infrastructure is what will be expensive. As for the businesses...well, I guess one could seize the land under eminent domain, compensate the former owner, then build a park on it ("it' being the land, not the former owner). This would depend on whether or not you wanted the business to even reopen.
On the subject of "ERD's", we are not fond of them mainly because of the prohibitive costs involved in maintaining them. The short half-life of Tritium requires that you constantly replace them, every 12 years or so I believe. They are just not a cost effective weapon and therefore not a serious consideration.
Greetings.

We are amused at the latitude you think will be given to victors under the NSUN restrictions. This resolution is not designed to protect the losers, but to make war so expensive that victors would think twice. Unfortunately, there are some with the wherewithal to pay for their war, and whether Yelda is in favour of ERDs or not will not matter one jot.

We suppose your next argument might be along the lines of 'space destroyers are not cost-effective at all' and we wish you good fortune in your future negotiations with spacefaring states whose opinions might differ. We are willing to sell thaumaturgic protection to you should you be so inclined.

We also see that since the NSUN resolution will apply only to NSUN states, that it becomes 'cost-effective' for a small state to invite destruction and thereby make a killing in financial terms. Case: destruction of a slum city - likely outcome would be a brand new housing project to the loser and financial loss (apart from that of prosecuting a war) to the winner. Financial reparation would actually be cheaper than 'repair'.

We rest our somewhat cynical case. Our main objection is that this piece of legislation, despite its laudable main thrust and apparent intent, conceals certain loopholes which might have largely unforeseen effects. We are also willing to sell divinatory services.

"Are you talking here about corruption amongst your own officials? If so, how can you possibly expect the resolution to cover that?"

I'm talking about corrupt officials everywhere. Come on, there aren't that many utopias in *this* world.

"I think it is to be assumed that this Resolution covers the time after the war has ended. If you have an ongoing insurgency organized by members of the former regime then you are still at war."

I don't know. If you've defeated the main army but you're just getting rid of a couple guerillas, are you still at war? Or are you just doing some spring cleaning? Again, there is really no right answer according to this bill. And there needs ot be.

"The Yeldan military prides itself on its professionalism. What possible reason could you have to needlessly torment the citizens of a defeated opponent. Yelda is already in compliance with the resolution and it has not even passed yet."

There is no reason to needlessly torment the citizens of a defeated opponent. I already stated that the vast majority of the bill has very admirable ideas - ones that could and should and hopefully will be realised. But the point is, there is still quite a bit that is open to interpretation and could mean two (or 3948029835092) different things to two (or 9508239058203984) different countries. Let alone all of the people within the army of each country. Will they have to get clearance from headquarters just in order to search a place, or will they be told (in maybe not so many words) to use their judgement in deciding whether or not their motive for wanting to search a person/place/thing is justified or not? Is suspecting someone reason enough? Do you need concrete proof? What? And if so, doesn't that mean that SO many searched people could try to protest the fact that they were searched, because THEY thought there wasn't enough justification, therefore clogging up the justice system with a ton of complaints that may or may not be true? And if, in an attempt to fix this later on, we tell soldiers to get clearance before searching, doesn't that mean there's going to be a ton of bureaucracy and waiting and possibly letting a bad guy escape while you wait for some higher official's opinion, which is still just an opinion? I'm saying that we need to make these good ideas clearer, so that there's no chance of messing things up. As I'm sure they will be. People will abuse this chance for personal interpretation in ways that will only harm the outcome of the invading nation, and the invaded nation, and we just can't let that happen on such a large scale. We need to finetune things.

Please, by all means, repass the bill once we're clearer on a few of these ideas. But for now, they're just too damn vague. And no amount of justifications in a *forum* will do any good - we need to get the reasoning behind the ideas, which is really what makes them acceptable in most cases, IN THE BILL.

Roathin, you make another excellent point.

Most of the proposal is good, but with one exception: searches of children.

While we want to definitely assure that children won't be mauled without good cause, I'm against making rules in ceasing searches of them entirely. Remember that recruiters of suicide bombers don't discriminate in who is "eligible" to strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in the middle of a crowd.

And in Italy (especially crowded downtown Rome), pickpocketers are often deliberately chosen to be children because no one will suspect one until the kid's robbed them blind.

Civilian rights post war

Recognizing war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.

Fully aware there is a standing resolution already protecting the rights of POWs.

Alarmed by the absence of protections for non-combatants living in an occupied nation after a war has ended, and the possible abuses that can and are being perpetrated against conquered civilians by invading nations.

Convinced measures are necessary for the protection and fair treatment of non-combatants not involved in the armed forces of any nation involved in the war.

Now that is perfectly fine.

A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Again, good.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….

This is now where we will begin to have problems.

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group

I assume that the definition of Dignity and Respect is up to the discretion of the invading nation?

- The invading nation must, immediately after cessation of hostilities, provide protection and security to the conquered civilian population against violence and looting.

Thought it may put undue burden on the conquering nations armies, I guess I don't have a problem with this clause either.


- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

And now we have run into a problem. For one thing it makes easy for insurgents to attack the conquering nations armies, disguised as non-combatants, and then just pick up and leave when they are done. Hit and run attacks would be impossible to stop. It's also hard to rebuild a nation when all the nations workers are leaving for greener pastures.

- No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution.

That's ok.

- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognized crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.

I think this assumes that all is nice and perky in conquered nation X; well it's not. The conquering nations armies shouldn't be subjected to hours of paper work and processing while trying to quell insurgent attacks and rioting. This would seem to defeat the clause about offering security to the conquered nations citizens.

- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.

This should have just been thrown out. My armies shouldn't have to have just cause to search homes for bombs, insurgent hideouts, or bases of operation for resistance cells. Also the words "Just Cause" have such a broad meaning that anything could be just cause, effectively making the clause meaningless.

- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.

1.) Pretty much the same reasons as stated above on the clause pertaining to the searching of property.

2.) Escorting a suspected suicide bomber to a private setting only endangers the life of my soldiers, and while I understand the logic behind the clause that pertains to the searching of women, it would just put undue burden on my soldiers. Also hardly any women are enlisted in my armies(the same can be said of many armies not only in the NSUN, but also the rest of NS.)

3.) As sick as it may be, children are used as weapons by insurgents and terrorists, not being able to search them would not only endanger my soldiers, but also any civilians of the conquered nations who may be targeted as collaborators.

- No non-combatants will be forcibly removed from their home or district and relocated unless such a move is necessary for their own safety in cases of unsafe structures, insurgent activity or other just reasons. They must be allowed to return as soon as possible after the problem is solved.

What about the safety of my men? It may be pertinent for the civilians to be moved so my men can further secure the area, I am sorry if that is an inconvenience to anyone living in the area.

- The invading nation must rapidly restore medical services and hospitals within the conquered nation and provide medical aid to those non-combatants who require it.
- The invading nation must rapidly restore any essential services, including but not limited to water, sewerage, electricity and food distribution networks destroyed or disrupted because of the war.

That's great actually.

- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.

I can tell no thought went in to this clause. While the rebuilding of roads, bridges, and rail should be mandatory if not for the sake of the conquered nation, but for that of the invading nation, rebuilding an entire country after a decade of attrition is asking to much from the invading nation. The conqueror may have suffered a pyrrhic victory and thus not have much of his infrastructure left either; thereby making the reconstruction of the conquered nation an undue burden.

- Any non-combatants drafted to assist the rebuilding must be paid a fair wage for their work.

It would be better if this was optional, as the occupier may not be able to afford to pay them anything.

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant.

It would probably had been better for you to have left that out.

Grand Duke Brythain, I always enjoy reading your comments.
Greetings.
We are amused at the latitude you think will be given to victors under the NSUN restrictions. This resolution is not designed to protect the losers, but to make war so expensive that victors would think twice. Unfortunately, there are some with the wherewithal to pay for their war, and whether Yelda is in favour of ERDs or not will not matter one jot.
I never said we could not afford to build them. I stated that we choose not to.

We suppose your next argument might be along the lines of 'space destroyers are not cost-effective at all' and we wish you good fortune in your future negotiations with spacefaring states whose opinions might differ. We are willing to sell thaumaturgic protection to you should you be so inclined.
We'll pass on the Thaumaturges.

We also see that since the NSUN resolution will apply only to NSUN states, that it becomes 'cost-effective' for a small state to invite destruction and thereby make a killing in financial terms. Case: destruction of a slum city - likely outcome would be a brand new housing project to the loser and financial loss (apart from that of prosecuting a war) to the winner. Financial reparation would actually be cheaper than 'repair'.
Here we are forced to agree with you. In many cases reparations would be preferable. I wish the resolution author had included that option, but I suppose he had his own reasons for not doing so.

We rest our somewhat cynical case. Our main objection is that this piece of legislation, despite its laudable main thrust and apparent intent, conceals certain loopholes which might have largely unforeseen effects. We are also willing to sell divinatory services.
I believe I remember the author mentioning that he left the loopholes there intentionally.

Civilian rights post war


- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
.


So the bad guys give the kids the bombs, drugs, guns, or urainum to carry and me as the invading force, can not search them. I know someone is saying well if they have let say a gun then they are a combant. But what if they are hiding the gun in his clothes and his family is crosssing a check point. Well the dad gets searched and mom to, But little tommy does not. Him and his family cross the check point. The son gives the gun to dad. Dad shoot up my check point. Maybe it was not a gun maybe it was a dirty bomb and the kid walks takes it outside the gates of my main base.

The resolution says you can't search private houses without just cause. If you think armed militants are hiding in a civilian's house then you have just cause to search it, and just cause to arrest anyone found within using it as a weapons base. This resolution only protects unarmed civilians, not insurgents, terrorists or anyone else armed and seeking confrontation with the invading nation.

Sorry, but that is such a naive response. You're counting on the good of man - man who is away from his family, seeing death daily, killing people, probably A LITTLE BIT psychologically damaged, frustrated with the people who keep bombing/hurting/killing his friends - to not search any house he wants to, even though if asked he can just say he "had a suspicion" that armed militants were hiding in the house? No one's going to follow a rule that they can SO easily get around, especially when they're doing it in hopes of catching a few more of the bad guys and getting the heck out of this country and back home to their family.

So much of what you wrote is open to a person's individual interpretation, which leaves much room for abuse and little room for adequate (and proveable) guilt and consequences. Granted, for many it's just a matter of fine-tuning things and adding a couple limitations... but until that small change is done, there's no way this vote should be allowed to pass!

Also, as kind of a side note, I'm appealing to all nations here to make sure that the rulers you know are reading ALL of the bill and not just scanning through the good parts, and getting the idea that this is an entirely good idea. Uninformed people shouldn't be voting, one way or the other.

I agree with Waterna. This proposal is good to go. I don't even understand your point, Adoxography. These laws are made as to protect the truly innocent in a war. It's just like the U.S. laws about searching, even pre-911. You have what's called a "drug profile" for instance, and there ar eothers, and what it simply is is an officer's interpretation of someone whjo mIGHT be carrying drugs and are going to search them. Now, I've never seen or heard of a cop randomly busting someone over and searching them for drugs... I understand that you feel that soldiers would be a lot more belligerent if you will towards civilians in the country they invaded, but the armed services are expected to be righteous and well-disciplined. There WILL be cases of soldiers breaking these laws or twisting them to almost taking advantage of some ambiguities, unless their instinct or anger bears fruit they will be expected to be disciplined. An international reputation would be at stake. And before you say it doesn't matter, that nation is in the U.N. and is forced to abide by the regulations.

But WHO are the truly innocent at war? And how can we make sure that we're not granting all of these civil liberties and protections to the very people who plan on blowing up half of our troops the next day? I guess it boils down to... how do you make sure those who look innocent are?

You can't. And therein lies my problem.

I contest the right of non-combatants to leave the nation without facing any sort of questioning. Even if they are not actively taking up arms against the occupying army, the occupying army is going to be facing serious resistance from insurgent group. It should be allowed to temporarily delay persons of interest for non-coercive interrogration (whew, a conflict of terms there) so that as much information about the coming, low-intenstiy war can be gathered as possible.
This includes sites of weapons caches, possible insurgent leaders, tactics, and places of refuge.

So the bad guys give the kids the bombs, drugs, guns, or urainum to carry and me as the invading force, can not search them. I know someone is saying well if they have let say a gun then they are a combant. But what if they are hiding the gun in his clothes and his family is crosssing a check point. Well the dad gets searched and mom to, But little tommy does not. Him and his family cross the check point. The son gives the gun to dad. Dad shoot up my check point. Maybe it was not a gun maybe it was a dirty bomb and the kid walks takes it outside the gates of my main base.

I can't help feeling a bit frustrated that so many people are automatically assuming that all non-combatants, especially the children, are terrorists just itching to kill your poor soldiers. There may, I repeat may, be a small number of insurgants who decide to take up arms and fight the occupation but the vast majority of non-combatants are just normal people who want to live their lives as normally as possible. No non-combatant should have to prove they aren't a "terrorist". Its up to your army to prove they are, and treat them as innocent until they are proven guilty.

Remember your armies don't have to be in the conquered nation. They are foreign occupiers after all, and I am assuming they are also trained professionals. This resolution isn't written to protect your soldiers. Its to protect innocent civilians from your soldiers.

As for the expense of rebuliding. That is also up to the invading army. They can pay for it themselves, raid the conquered nations treasury, go half and half with the conquered nation, or do what the RL Americans are doing in Iraq and use sales of the conquered nations resources to pay for it.

The loopholes and bits left out. Yes I know about them. NSUN proposals have a character limit and I had to try to get as much in this as I could within that limit. I had covered some of the points that have been brought up in this thread, but had to trim the proposal down several times. I did the best I could.

I can't help feeling a bit frustrated that so many people are automatically assuming that all non-combatants, especially the children, are terrorists just itching to kill your poor soldiers. There may, I repeat may, be a small number of insurgants who decide to take up arms and fight the occupation but the vast majority of non-combatants are just normal people who want to live their lives as normally as possible. No non-combatant should have to prove they aren't a "terrorist". Its up to your army to prove they are, and treat them as innocent until they are proven guilty.

When my soldiers are trying to restabilize a region they have just conquered, its not their job to go through an entire legal process to prove person A wont blow them up, its person A's job to prove his innocence.

Remember your armies don't have to be in the conquered nation. They are foreign occupiers after all, and I am assuming they are also trained professionals.

In Combat

This resolution isn't written to protect your soldiers. Its to protect innocent civilians from your soldiers.

If you knew anything, you would know the protection of my soldiers comes before that of the conquered enemy.


As for the expense of rebuliding. That is also up to the invading army. They can pay for it themselves, raid the conquered nations treasury, go half and half with the conquered nation, or do what the RL Americans are doing in Iraq and use sales of the conquered nations resources to pay for it.

Thats not what the language of your resolution states.

The loopholes and bits left out. Yes I know about them. NSUN proposals have a character limit and I had to try to get as much in this as I could within that limit. I had covered some of the points that have been brought up in this thread, but had to trim the proposal down several times. I did the best I could.

There are always loophoples, but they shouldn't be so big that a tank could drive through them.

I can't help feeling a bit frustrated that so many people are automatically assuming that all non-combatants, especially the children, are terrorists just itching to kill your poor soldiers. There may, I repeat may, be a small number of insurgants who decide to take up arms and fight the occupation but the vast majority of non-combatants are just normal people who want to live their lives as normally as possible. No non-combatant should have to prove they aren't a "terrorist". Its up to your army to prove they are, and treat them as innocent until they are proven guilty.

Remember your armies don't have to be in the conquered nation. They are foreign occupiers after all, and I am assuming they are also trained professionals. This resolution isn't written to protect your soldiers. Its to protect innocent civilians from your soldiers.

As for the expense of rebuliding. That is also up to the invading army. They can pay for it themselves, raid the conquered nations treasury, go half and half with the conquered nation, or do what the RL Americans are doing in Iraq and use sales of the conquered nations resources to pay for it.

The loopholes and bits left out. Yes I know about them. NSUN proposals have a character limit and I had to try to get as much in this as I could within that limit. I had covered some of the points that have been brought up in this thread, but had to trim the proposal down several times. I did the best I could.


Am i wrong in guessing you have never been in a War Zone. Well think of it this way say you live in peacfull country A and Evil country B invades you. Then you as a citzen of country A are not going to be happy that you could be losing your freedom or having to listen to some other goverment that you feel is infringe on your right to wear a yellow shirts. So the war is over and do you A suck it up and burn your yellow shirts or do you fight.

You want to know why when you invade a country you kill many of the civilans. Well this way you can scare the people into following you and not joining insurgencies. It's hard to convince someone to pick up a gun when they know you will kill there mother father sisiter brother cousins and maybe there neighbors to.

With that said i think you have it wrong, during a ocupation all civialn personel are consider dangerous until they have been searched this includes there house,car, work site, the bar they vist and there neighbor hood.One other thing to consider is that in some countrys chlidren are taught to clean, handle and shoot guns.

Sorry if this is to long or has some errors.

"I can't help feeling a bit frustrated that so many people are automatically assuming that all non-combatants, especially the children, are terrorists just itching to kill your poor soldiers."
I understand this frustration. I really really do. And to some extent, it sickens me that our first thought is to protect our people, meaning we see them as superior to those people we've just invaded. But the fact of the matter is that we, as a government, have a responsibility to protect our troops as best we can from attacks as well as prevent those living in the invaded country from getting caught up in a terrorist organization because they've been suckered into believing we're only going to damage their way of life, their belief, etc... Or just because they've been forced to.
I also understand your belief that a non-combatant should have to prove they aren't a terrorist, but sometimes just calling yourself non-combattant isn't enough. Again, as a governing power you have a responsibility towards a hell of a lot of people and, at the end of the day, in my opinion it's far better to have people offended because you searched their house than because you assumed everyone was friendly and a bunch of people got blown up. My best solution would be to enforce much stricter penalties for unacceptable behaviour towards people and their property, ie destroying a house in the process of searching it. Searches don't need to involve breaking stuff, just thoroughly checking things out to make sure that they are as they appear.

In a country where every person and their dog could be trying to kill you, I'm afraid "innocent until proven guilty" is insufficient and will wind up in many many soldiers being brutally killed. If you're dealing with dangerous people, you need to see them as dangerous people, and not give them this much benefit of the doubt.

Again, all in all, your ideas are very admirable but there needs to be clarity on the points mentioned and re-mentioned a thousand times. Maybe try passing the bill without the troublesome points, then create a new one that includes these, since your claim is that character limit was an issue?

I contest the right of non-combatants to leave the nation without facing any sort of questioning. Even if they are not actively taking up arms against the occupying army, the occupying army is going to be facing serious resistance from insurgent group. It should be allowed to temporarily delay persons of interest for non-coercive interrogration (whew, a conflict of terms there) so that as much information about the coming, low-intenstiy war can be gathered as possible.
This includes sites of weapons caches, possible insurgent leaders, tactics, and places of refuge.

There is nothing in this resolution that says you can't question non-combatants before they leave their nation. There is nothing that says you can't question them at any time at all. The only thing you can't do under this is arrest and detain them without just cause. If you have strong reason/evidence to believe they are part of an insurgents group, then you have just cause.

You are within your rights to check the credentials of those fleeing the conquered nation before they cross the border. I didn't say anything against this deliberatly so high ranking army officers, government officials etc involved in war crimes against either the invading nation or their own people couldn't use this to escape arrest.

You have to remember it was(in example) YOU who put your troops in harm's way in the first place. What did you expect, to send them in to take over and then claim looking out for them is your first priority? Doesn't make much sense to me.

And ElectronX, at this point what you are doing is not constructive criticism, nor criticism at all. It is simply a conflict of opinions. You're not presenting arguments, but your own order of priorities. Just put some logic behind them.

And laws HAVE to be flexible. There ARE exceptions and special circumstances, be they mitigating or not. A rigid law is one that would often be broken and often be opposed, by different sides too.

When my soldiers are trying to restabilize a region they have just conquered, its not their job to go through an entire legal process to prove person A wont blow them up, its person A's job to prove his innocence.



In Combat



If you knew anything, you would know the protection of my soldiers comes before that of the conquered enemy.




Thats not what the language of your resolution states.



There are always loophoples, but they shouldn't be so big that a tank could drive through them.
ElectronX, I've noticed that you are not a U.N. member. This makes me curious as to why you are here. This resolution will not affect you one way or the other. If you have a U.N. puppet it is customary to use it here. Or is ElectronX the puppet of a larger U.N. nation?

You have to remember it was(in example) YOU who put your troops in harm's way in the first place. What did you expect, to send them in to take over and then claim looking out for them is your first priority? Doesn't make much sense to me.

So what? What kind of bullshit argument is that? "u invaded so your soldiers lives mean chikn poop!" War is about enforcing forieign policy and protection of ones own interests, and soldiers are of ElectronX's interest.

And ElectronX, at this point what you are doing is not constructive criticism, nor criticism at all. It is simply a conflict of opinions.

An argument? Who would have thought :rolleyes:

You're not presenting arguments, but your own order of priorities. Just put some logic behind them.


I presented arguments that this resolution isn't flexible and makes no sense from a tactical point of view, if you can't see that then its your problem.

Am i wrong in guessing you have never been in a War Zone. Well think of it this way say you live in peacfull country A and Evil country B invades you. Then you as a citzen of country A are not going to be happy that you could be losing your freedom or having to listen to some other goverment that you feel is infringe on your right to wear a yellow shirts. So the war is over and do you A suck it up and burn your yellow shirts or do you fight.

You want to know why when you invade a country you kill many of the civilans. Well this way you can scare the people into following you and not joining insurgencies. It's hard to convince someone to pick up a gun when they know you will kill there mother father sisiter brother cousins and maybe there neighbors to.

With that said i think you have it wrong, during a ocupation all civialn personel are consider dangerous until they have been searched this includes there house,car, work site, the bar they vist and there neighbor hood.One other thing to consider is that in some countrys chlidren are taught to clean, handle and shoot guns.

Sorry if this is to long or has some errors.


Lets try another scenario.

I have a non-UN nation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=drogano ) with twice your nations population, a frightening economy, a main industry of uranium mining (made into bombs by another puppet who's main industry is arms manufacturing), and a lot of the budget goes into defence. I suspect if I decided to use that nation against you, it would swat yours like a fly and your people would find themselves under occupation in no time (this is just hypothetical. I know there are plenty of nations out there that could whip mine in a second :D ).

Under your argument my army would not only have the right, but obligation, to kill your people on a whim to scare them into co-operating? That has to be one of the scariest excuses for mass murder I've ever heard.

This doesn't just protect the people of nations you consider your enemies. It also protects your own people if you are attacked by another UN nation.

ElectronX, I've noticed that you are not a U.N. member. This makes me curious as to why you are here. This resolution will not affect you one way or the other. If you have a U.N. puppet it is customary to use it here. Or is ElectronX the puppet of a larger U.N. nation?
Why the fuck does that matter? I am not a member of the UN so my opinion is invalid? Yeah fucking right.

Why the fuck does that matter? I am not a member of the UN so my opinion is invalid? Yeah fucking right.
Heh.

There is nothing in this resolution that says you can't question non-combatants before they leave their nation. There is nothing that says you can't question them at any time at all. The only thing you can't do under this is arrest and detain them without just cause. If you have strong reason/evidence to believe they are part of an insurgents group, then you have just cause.

You are within your rights to check the credentials of those fleeing the conquered nation before they cross the border. I didn't say anything against this deliberatly so high ranking army officers, government officials etc involved in war crimes against either the invading nation or their own people couldn't use this to escape arrest.

Objection withdrawn.

Since I'm an idiot at heart who's tired and coping with the loss of my grandmother (trying to milk sympathy so you'll answer the following question as pedantically clear as possible), how exactly does one go about attacking another nation in a warlike manner in this game??? Last time I looked at the rules, it said you can't do that...O_o

Since I'm an idiot at heart who's tired and coping with the loss of my grandmother (trying to milk sympathy so you'll answer the following question as pedantically clear as possible), how exactly does one go about attacking another nation in a warlike manner in this game??? Last time I looked at the rules, it said you can't do that...O_o
Sorry about your grandmother. I lost mine last year. As for war, it is roleplayed in the NationStates and International Incidents forums.

The People's Dominion of Snoogit only have one overarching problem with this resolution.

If the invasion force was provoked by the nation it is invading prior to invasion (It is attacked, and now is invading the attacker), then it is in the UN's best interest to exclude them from these protections.

It is not in the attacked's best interest to rebuild the infrastructure of a society that wished to kill them!

I am representative of a new member of the NSUN, so as such please forgive me if I unwittingly say something out of turn or step on someone's toes; no offense is meant.

The ideas at hand in Waterana's proposal are well thought out, and I support them in principle. However, the gaps pointed out by some of the well-spoken members who are in opposition gives me pause, and I fear I must vote against as a result.

The lack of ability to search children is mildly troublesome; although children are not commonly combatants, it is a legitimate issue to be raised. But the "just cause" clauses are the most troublesome, since an invading nation will always consider its own purposes to be just cause, and the UN is unlikely to be called in as an arbiter of what is just and what is not.

That being said, I support the ideas of the resolution and what it itends. Regrettably, Cestus III must vote no.

I.ve seen some reactions on this proporsal...
Since this is first time i'm going to bring out my voice on the side of the proporsal.
I vote for!
And i do that just becouse an easy point. This proporsal gives civilians at least an chance to get their lifes back on track.
2 ppl before me were not completely agreed with the proporsal, but, in WW2, german ppl almost got enought pain just by invasion by other nations. Those german ppl were brainwashed. You cant present an bill for ppl who didnt intend to do wrong. Another point...children who dont may be searched...
someone (possible little sick in my eyes) says that that is not right...ok smart enemy wil use children in that case like carriers of ammunition or explosives, but proporsal goes about other kind of searches. Imagine your own child searched! You will hurt the child, give it all reason to hate you, give it permanent trauma en above all it is animal behavior! Just check the child clothing without even touching the child is enought to see or child is wearing ammo or explosives under his clothing. And that is normal.
Btw why search them if we just can use detectors? Let everyone walk trought the scan! Think smart. Country that has highlu developed military sure has an simple scan like ones used on airports.

To finish, i hate to say that this proporsal ir really the one i ve had hoped to see here. We got the weapons now and now we must clean the mess we made using this toys! Great idia!

Just one small thing...maybe my english is not that good but:
any civilians ho will be DRAFTED for assistance....
Drafted is that not little...not out of free will? at least those ppl didnt drop an bom on their own house isnt...they should put the politician,who is responsible for direct order to start the war, at work in place ot the civilians.

Our internal debate concerning this proposal continues. Our concerns now focus solely on the requirement that an occupying force rebuild businesses. The provision at issue reads:

"The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war."

During our discussions, one of the Prince's councillors raised this question:

Ausserland has a firm national policy of using military force only if subjected to armed attack. If we overcome the attacker and it is necessary to occupy certain of its territory temporarily, would this resolution require us to rebuild their privately-owned arms factories, ammunition plants, and other firms whose business consists solely of supporting their military forces (e.g., contractor-owned/contractor operated tank maintenance facilities)?

Our leaning at the moment is to vote in favor of the resolution and to urge our regional delegate to do likewise. Its merits are many. But this issue still troubles us.

Our internal debate concerning this proposal continues. Our concerns now focus solely on the requirement that an occupying force rebuild businesses. The provision at issue reads:

"The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war."

During our discussions, one of the Prince's councillors raised this question:

Ausserland has a firm national policy of using military force only if subjected to armed attack. If we overcome the attacker and it is necessary to occupy certain of its territory temporarily, would this resolution require us to rebuild their privately-owned arms factories, ammunition plants, and other firms whose business consists solely of supporting their military forces (e.g., contractor-owned/contractor operated tank maintenance facilities)?

Our leaning at the moment is to vote in favor of the resolution and to urge our regional delegate to do likewise. Its merits are many. But this issue still troubles us.


No, you aren't required to rebuild that sort of business. There is no way I'd expect an invading nation to be required to rebuild anything arms or war centred like your examples. As I didn't go into detail with that point (character limit) the invading nation can decide what businesses will be rebuilt. I certainly don't expect the invading nation to rebuild the conquered nations war machine.

When I wrote that I had things like shops, bakeries, butchers, carpenters, markets etc in mind. Businesses that would help get the civilians back on their feet and return some normality to their lives. The whole resolution is civilian/non-combatant related so things like arms, tanks and ammunition don't apply.

I think you have a very good proposition, nicely worded and full of loop holes. I am sorry I can not support your idea at this time because it infringes too much on how Tauth Dodannan is being run. Just because a country is conquered the civilians of said country should not gain more rights than the citizens of the winning country. :sniper:
Have fun and enjoy yourselves.

The Holy Empire of Gravlen would like to extend its gratitude to the delegate from the great nation of Waterana, for taking the time to explain and clear up some misunderstandings regarding the proposition at vote.

Regarding the proposition, we observe that the discussion is mainly focused on the part about searching children. We would like to clarify our previous objection: It was not that children might transport weaponry that in our view was problematic, as one in those cases might see the situation as an continued act of war, a current state of emergency, or as a situation that will fall under the last paragraph of the resolution. The proposition is surely open to interpetation on this issue.

What we found troublesome was the fact that it would seem that this resolution has the possibility to interfere with criminal investigations that might be conducted by the occupying nations policeforce. Though, if it is primarily directed at the occupying nations armed forces, we find this concern to be largely unfounded.

We still feel that this proposition have great merit and that the rights of non-combatants in an occupied state needs to be strengthened. Therefor we will not vote against this resolution.

Unfortunently, as a matter of principle, the Holy Empire of Gravlen cannot support this resolution as long as the preamble contains the admission that war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world. It is this fact, and absolutely not what some newsrepports seem to suggest (that we would utilize any excuse to avoid voting for this proposal), that makes it impossible for us to support it directly.

As such, His Holiness the Emperor (All Hail the Emperor!) in His wisdom commands that the empire will abstain from this vote.

All Hail!

Thor Lynson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

We of the Evil British Monkeys have other problems that can be seen. We and many of our citizens do approve of good treatment towards a captured region, however, we do not feel that this Resolution is a good one to do so. Going back to the children, you can use them as weapons. Although you can't use anything as bulky as dynamite, you could still use them. Give them very small things to carry. Such as small bombs to put in their shoes. You could even glue bombs to their legs. Because they aren't combatants, we couldn't kill them, because they havn't taken up arms, arms not being defined.

We also have real problems with women-2-women searching. We ask, why should we search women only with women?

We also have real problems with women-2-women searching. We ask, why should we search women only with women?
Greetings.

We have thought long and hard on this point of cavil. We conclude that is must be like a point-to-point protocol. Nobody denies that such a protocol can be point-to-point, or that other protocols can also do the job. This must be a woman-to-woman protocol, and it is the choice suggested. It is up for debate, as you have noted. We may even decide if it is to be synchronous or asynchronous.

Lets try another scenario.

I have a non-UN nation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=drogano ) with twice your nations population, a frightening economy, a main industry of uranium mining (made into bombs by another puppet who's main industry is arms manufacturing), and a lot of the budget goes into defence. I suspect if I decided to use that nation against you, it would swat yours like a fly and your people would find themselves under occupation in no time (this is just hypothetical. I know there are plenty of nations out there that could whip mine in a second :D ).

Under your argument my army would not only have the right, but obligation, to kill your people on a whim to scare them into co-operating? That has to be one of the scariest excuses for mass murder I've ever heard.

This doesn't just protect the people of nations you consider your enemies. It also protects your own people if you are attacked by another UN nation.


You totally missed my point. My point is that in order to have a successful occupation and to have the least amount of casualties on both sides. You need to be able to search search search. Your proposal allows children to be un-searched and I would know have to put women in front line units to search other women.

If this resolution passes it will show how truly unrealistic the UN is.

I guess the biggest loop hole is that I can just never end war. As long as I never say the war is over I can pretty much do what I want.

No, you aren't required to rebuild that sort of business. There is no way I'd expect an invading nation to be required to rebuild anything arms or war centred like your examples. As I didn't go into detail with that point (character limit) the invading nation can decide what businesses will be rebuilt. I certainly don't expect the invading nation to rebuild the conquered nations war machine.

When I wrote that I had things like shops, bakeries, butchers, carpenters, markets etc in mind. Businesses that would help get the civilians back on their feet and return some normality to their lives. The whole resolution is civilian/non-combatant related so things like arms, tanks and ammunition don't apply.

Thank you for that clarification. Although the resolution fails to state this limitation, we believe this establishes enough legislative intent that it will suffice. Ausserland will cast its vote -- with some lingering hesitation -- for the resolution.

The point of war is that Country A doesn't like Country B or Country A wants Country B's resources or land or has some such desire to occupy Country B, whether reasonable or not. Country A will then do anything, however dog-dirty it is, to occupy Country B whilst creating as many B-casualties and as few A-casualties as possible in the process. When A occupies B successfully, B becomes part of A. B is no longer of B's original government. B is now of A's government. Assuming this resolution takes hold, B no longer exists, making this resolution completely pointless since survivors of the war will simply be survivors and not "non-combatant civilians."

Another point which should be made here is this: a non-combatant maybe a person who did not sign up to fight or a person who was not drafted or a person who was too young or too old to join the armed forces. What about the people who did join the fight, fought a bunch of invading soldiers, and survived, even if they didn't save their country. Should they really be excluded from all these niceties that people are getting for not getting off their asses and standing up for their country? I think not. I will be voting against this resolution.

~Ryan of Ambrectar

[FONT=Courier New]What about the people who did join the fight, fought a bunch of invading soldiers, and survived, even if they didn't save their country.

The author already accounted for that. The UN adopted a Convention on POWs in Sept. 2003. The author of this resolution wanted to basically give protections to non-combatants.

Although the people of Baranxtu appreciates the basic ideas of this UN resolution, Baranxtu cannot support it in its current form.

The reasons for this have already been pointed out; it lacks a proper definition of a 'just cause', who exactly can be seen as 'non-combatant' and as 'child' and what a nation defending itself after being attacked is to do. Also, the status of combatants who have been forced to take up arms is not clarified.
Therefore, the republic of Baranxtu has to vote against the resolution in its current form.

I.ve seen some reactions on this proporsal...
Since this is first time i'm going to bring out my voice on the side of the proporsal.
I vote for!
And i do that just becouse an easy point. This proporsal gives civilians at least an chance to get their lifes back on track.
2 ppl before me were not completely agreed with the proporsal, but, in WW2, german ppl almost got enought pain just by invasion by other nations. Those german ppl were brainwashed. You cant present an bill for ppl who didnt intend to do wrong. Another point...children who dont may be searched...
someone (possible little sick in my eyes) says that that is not right...ok smart enemy wil use children in that case like carriers of ammunition or explosives, but proporsal goes about other kind of searches. Imagine your own child searched! You will hurt the child, give it all reason to hate you, give it permanent trauma en above all it is animal behavior! Just check the child clothing without even touching the child is enought to see or child is wearing ammo or explosives under his clothing. And that is normal.
Btw why search them if we just can use detectors? Let everyone walk trought the scan! Think smart. Country that has highlu developed military sure has an simple scan like ones used on airports.

To finish, i hate to say that this proporsal ir really the one i ve had hoped to see here. We got the weapons now and now we must clean the mess we made using this toys! Great idia!

Just one small thing...maybe my english is not that good but:
any civilians ho will be DRAFTED for assistance....
Drafted is that not little...not out of free will? at least those ppl didnt drop an bom on their own house isnt...they should put the politician,who is responsible for direct order to start the war, at work in place ot the civilians.


With your logic I would not have to search anyone because i can look at their clothes.. sorry but that does not work,, did you hear about the women who was smuggling cocain in her bra.. Her tits looked perfectly normal it was the dog who caught on to her.

On your point of having metal dectors, I will gladly use metal dectors and other screening equipment, but your country will have to buy it. The cost of putting this equipment at check points would be insane. When you are the occupying force the best thing to do is search everything. You have to take those sugar coated glassess off to see the real world and to understand that men/women/chlidren can be a threat against a army. If i was a non-un member and a UN member invade my countyr i would be gathering up all the kids and giving them bombs to slow down the occupation while my main body reorganizes.

Has anyone suggested amending the current resolution to include a definition of "just cause" as referred to in Activating Clauses 5, 6, and 7?

Additionally, would anyone support an addition to the final clause that reminded nations that these civilian combatants are still subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention as well as any other International Treaties and Laws which may apply to regular soldier combatants?

If a search is conducted and a terrorist device is found, then the subject was obviously not a non-combatant, but many such searches would have to be fruitlessly conducted in order to determine who was. This resolution is self contradicting because it demands of us that we provide security while forbidding us the means of doing so.

Treating Non-Combatant Civilians reasonably is good and virtuous, but this bill simply goes beyond what is reasonable to a crippling extent.

Not if you define "searches must be conducted with just cause" as "any defeated civilians approaching our location are suspicious." :D

Fatus Maximus has approsed this proposal.

I regret not finding this Resolution earlier. It is very original, and relatively well written. I agree with it wholeheartedly except for

-Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.

As we've witnessed accross the world, most notably in Africa where children are forced to fight, and in Palestine, where we've witnessed young suicide bombers, children can become combattants. For the safety of soldiers and civilians, if there are reasonable grounds, the search of a child should be warranted.

As such, with the approval of my regional members, I will be voting AGAINST.

However, if this resolution fails to pass, I urge the author to make a few modifications, including the one above, and re-submit it. I believe that with a few modifications, it will pass handily.

~Baribeau

as (i believe) was until recently the obvious case in Iraq/Afgahnistan, would not the enemy force non-combatants to house them? This could either protect the combatants, or, force the invaders to eliminate/harm non-combatants to remove the combatants

(i apologize if this has already been discussed but i dont have enogh time to search the forums for this little bit of info)

Tovarisch Ioon

A great idea, not without it's flaws but the benefits easily outweigh these.

It has been decided, therefore, that the Bad Hair Bear nation will be voting for this resolution.

It has been the general strategy of terrorists over the past half century or so, to deliberately jeopardize civilians, in order to increase their casualties and thereby, invoke political leverage against the dominate military force.

Their tactics have generally included the impersonation of and usage of, innocent civilians. Often those innocent civilians are actually not so innocent accomplices, but played out in media and political propaganda, these details are often overlooked.

Is it necessary to make rebuilding places of worship a priority? They don't produce food, water, electricity, clothing, or any other necessary commodity which might be in short supply after an invasion. Furthermore, in many countries, it's the places of worship which play the biggest roles in inciting violence.

Is it necessary to make rebuilding places of worship a priority? They don't produce food, water, electricity, clothing, or any other necessary commodity which might be in short supply after an invasion. Furthermore, in many countries, it's the places of worship which play the biggest roles in inciting violence.If they aren't important to the occupied nation then they should not have been destroyed to begin with. There are certain needs that certain human beings cannot go without, that don't include nourishment and protection. I say rebuild the churches.

Certainly, places of worship shouldn't be targeted; they have no strategic or military value and they're usually crammed with civilians. Nevertheless, they may be damaged during a conflict. If a nation lacks precision bombing capability, for instance, civilian structures will inevitably be destroyed. Uncontrolled fires might also claim a few.

There's also the possibility, in theocratic governments, of places of worship being used as weapons caches, terrorist strongholds, or other strategically important sites--in which case they may be destroyed.

Finally, I submit that so-called spiritual needs are less pressing than those of food, water, electricity, and shelter. Ergo, those needs necessary to human survival should be addressed first; places of worship can wait to be rebuilt, just like any other secondary civilian structure.

Also, I'm referring not just to churches, but to mosques, temples, and any other site with religious affiliation.

We of the Evil British Monkeys have other problems that can be seen. We and many of our citizens do approve of good treatment towards a captured region, however, we do not feel that this Resolution is a good one to do so. Going back to the children, you can use them as weapons. Although you can't use anything as bulky as dynamite, you could still use them. Give them very small things to carry. Such as small bombs to put in their shoes. You could even glue bombs to their legs. Because they aren't combatants, we couldn't kill them, because they havn't taken up arms, arms not being defined
We also have real problems with women-2-women searching. We ask, why should we search women only with women?

I answered the question about the children in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9198824&postcount=19). The resolution only says you can’t body search them. That means laying hands on them. There is nothing to suggest you can’t ask them to empty their pockets, lift their shirts, etc. Heck you could demand they strip naked if that’s what it takes to satisfy your soldiers that an eight year old isn’t a walking bomb.

As for women searching women I answered that one in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220861&postcount=6). Again this only applies to body searches. I’m female and put that in as a bit of a personal hate. The thought of a strange man wearing an enemy’s uniform patting me down is something I never want to experience. In RL Australia male police aren’t allowed to search female suspects and I’m sure a lot of other countries have similar rules. I decided to apply the same thing in my resolution.


If this resolution passes it will show how truly unrealistic the UN is.

I guess the biggest loop hole is that I can just never end war. As long as I never say the war is over I can pretty much do what I want.

Of course the NSUN is unrealistic. This is a game after all :).

Yes you can use that loophole and keep the war going to avoid this but won’t that take an awful toll on your nations military and economy?

Yes you can use that loophole and keep the war going to avoid this but won’t that take an awful toll on your nations military and economy?
Who says wars and militaries have anything to do with each other? So long as the state of war is never declared to be over, the two countries are indeed at war, regardless of the presence of troops.

Certainly, places of worship shouldn't be targeted; they have no strategic or military value and they're usually crammed with civilians. Nevertheless, they may be damaged during a conflict. If a nation lacks precision bombing capability, for instance, civilian structures will inevitably be destroyed. Uncontrolled fires might also claim a few.

There's also the possibility, in theocratic governments, of places of worship being used as weapons caches, terrorist strongholds, or other strategically important sites--in which case they may be destroyed.

Finally, I submit that so-called spiritual needs are less pressing than those of food, water, electricity, and shelter. Ergo, those needs necessary to human survival should be addressed first; places of worship can wait to be rebuilt, just like any other secondary civilian structure.

Also, I'm referring not just to churches, but to mosques, temples, and any other site with religious affiliation.


You are right about these places not having any military value but they have great value to those that use them.

An invading army will make things a lot easier for itself ("terrorist" wise for example) by winning the peace after they win the war. One of the ways they can do that is by giving the conquered people back the places that are important to them. In some nations and cultures religion will be high on the list. As I'm an atheist, I don't pretend to know how valuable a place of worship is but in the aftermarth of a war, living in an invaded nation, friends and family members dead, I am guessing it would be very dear to the hearts of those who believe.

With your logic I would not have to search anyone because i can look at their clothes.. sorry but that does not work,, did you hear about the women who was smuggling cocain in her bra.. Her tits looked perfectly normal it was the dog who caught on to her.

On your point of having metal dectors, I will gladly use metal dectors and other screening equipment, but your country will have to buy it. The cost of putting this equipment at check points would be insane. When you are the occupying force the best thing to do is search everything. You have to take those sugar coated glassess off to see the real world and to understand that men/women/chlidren can be a threat against a army. If i was a non-un member and a UN member invade my countyr i would be gathering up all the kids and giving them bombs to slow down the occupation while my main body reorganizes.

Im sorry, but did i said something about metal detectors? I thought i said scans...Like ones at airport, they scan everything. Use ones from hospital if you want to scan on baby of an pregnant women, maybe those baby is carying some guns!
But be honest, those are innocent ppl who did nothing wrong untill its proved by the law, so i dont care where you get those equipment but you are going to use it becouse otherwise you are the one who should be invaded.
You still forget that those ppl posible didnt ask you to invade them, destroy their houses en ruin their lives...May they please keep that little honour they still have left?
For my part my nation will pay for all those equipment, dogs and personnel to search in human way.
If some nations here (but how could be it different as its real reason of war) are to greedy to spend extra money they get out of profit from war.

and another little thing...
Some ppl as i read sounds like or they get more rights if they occupy enemy territory...
I'm sorry but human rights never changes, no matter in what situation.
Main course of war is (or should be) an goal that will solve an problem.
When goal is reached, war ends and ppl whos live has been messed up are victims and victims need help.
Thats main reason why i voted FOR this resolution.

Please keep in mind that destruction is easy its harder to create something.

As for women searching women I answered that one in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220861&postcount=6). Again this only applies to body searches. I’m female and put that in as a bit of a personal hate. The thought of a strange man wearing an enemy’s uniform patting me down is something I never want to experience. In RL Australia male police aren’t allowed to search female suspects and I’m sure a lot of other countries have similar rules. I decided to apply the same thing in my resolution.
I didn't know you were female. I think I referred to you as "he" in earlier posts. Sorry.

I didn't know you were female. I think I referred to you as "he" in earlier posts. Sorry.

Thats OK, don't worry about it :).

Its a bit hard to tell who's a he and who's a she over the internet unless a person comes right out and says so :D.

Thats OK, don't worry about it :).

Its a bit hard to tell who's a he and who's a she over the internet unless a person comes right out and says so :D.
I find it curious how we suspect everyone is male untill proven otherwise. Weird. :confused: Why is that so?

As a King by my own hand,

Meaning that I personally (with some help of my now cabinent members) conqured my nation and became King, I am qualified to answer the question.

#1 You go to war because of such extreme points of view that you want to conquer that nation/region and bring them under your point of view

#2 You go to war to defend yourself from answer #1

#3 You think you are the police of the world and want to slap a nation's wrist and say STOOOOPPPP THAT!! :rolleyes:

Anyways, after defeating the area you went to war with you will have 2 groups of civillians left over:

A) Civillians that will abide by the new government.

B) Civillians that won't.

The B catagory needs to be eliminated. And this resolution will just make more B's.

Now go ahead and say "yeah my defeated nation won't be punished" and vote yes. You basically just said that your nation is so liberal that anyone with independent thought can bowl your nation over.

To my fellow Conservatives trying to live in a world of reality and hard work:
I strongly urge a NO vote so that when we finally get enough sense to eradicate liberalism that we won't have to be concerned with any terrorist attacks

Thank you ;)

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

The City by the Live S... seldomly have I seen a statement with so many precipitated conclusions.

Once again, we have a very poorly thought out resolution with too many loopholes. As written, this would severely punish the winner in any war. We could see nations deliberately allowing themselves to be overrun without a fight because they will come out ahead in the end, and if they want to hide their weapons of mass destruction, all they have to do is give all the materials to the children.

I think we need to unelect all our delegates and elect law majors, or at least English majors. That way, perhaps we might start to see a few laws that actually make sense.

Kiloran']Once again, we have a very poorly thought out resolution with too many loopholes. As written, this would severely punish the winner in any war. We could see nations deliberately allowing themselves to be overrun without a fight because they will come out ahead in the end, Hence the value of a surrender.

Kiloran']and if they want to hide their weapons of mass destruction, all they have to do is give all the materials to the children.You can't fit a WMD in someone's pocket much less that of a child.

Kiloran']I think we need to unelect all our delegates and elect law majors, or at least English majors. That way, perhaps we might start to see a few laws that actually make sense.This proposal soon to be passed was presented here in it's draft version. It's a shame you did not see it in time to illuminate us with your english skills. :rolleyes:

I answered the question about the children in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9198824&postcount=19).

I understand your concern about this and believe me I did think very carefully about the concequences before putting that part about the children in. I did and still do expect to hear a fair bit against that.

There is good reason why you hear things against it.

The reason I finally included it was because this proposal is aimed at protections for the civilians, not the invading army.

So you huck the protection of soldiers (who are people btw) out the door because they know how to shoot a gun? The invading army may not have been the actual aggressor, and may actually be the good guy, but I can see you didn't take that into consideration.

They are armed professionals who can look after themselves.

So fucking what? Will that stop people from bombing them in the middle of the streets like in Iraq?

I just couldn't stand the thought of war traumatised children being patted down by soldiers wearing the uniform of the army that not long before was trying to kill them and their families.

And I couldn't stand the thought of war traumatised soildiers being suicide bombed by children loaded down with 20 sticks of TNT.

I didn't put an age in the proposal because of the pandoras box that opens with different NS races, but I personally consider a human child to be 13 or under.

Atleast this shows you were trying to think.

As for the extemists, if they've taken up arms against the invading nation (and I would consider brainwashing, training and equiping "terrorists" as taking up arms) then they're not covered by this and the invading nation is free to deal with them as they see fit.

Of course you can't tell who would or would not be a terrorist because they look like fucking civilians.

The resolution only says you can’t body search them. That means laying hands on them. There is nothing to suggest you can’t ask them to empty their pockets, lift their shirts, etc. Heck you could demand they strip naked if that’s what it takes to satisfy your soldiers that an eight year old isn’t a walking bomb.

No. The language you used in your resolution clearly states we cannot search them, it doesn't make these provisions you have stated here.

As for women searching women I answered that one in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220861&postcount=6).


It is a assumption on my part that most armies are mostly men so the chances of men being searched by women are a lot smaller than the opposite. Thats all there is too it.

So fucking what? Women fight in wars and women can be suicide bombers to, escorting them to a private place, so they can bomb us in private, is just fucking stupid.

Again this only applies to body searches.

Not what the lanuage of your resolution states.

I’m female and put that in as a bit of a personal hate.

Personal feelings don't mean shit on the battlefield.

The thought of a strange man wearing an enemy’s uniform patting me down is something I never want to experience.

It's called war, damnit.

In RL Australia male police aren’t allowed to search female suspects and I’m sure a lot of other countries have similar rules. I decided to apply the same thing in my resolution.

Police searching for contraband, and soldiers searching for bombs are two entirely different things.


Of course the NSUN is unrealistic. This is a game after all :).

Yes, so lets make it even worse by passing resolutions that are not logically sound.

Yes you can use that loophole and keep the war going to avoid this but won’t that take an awful toll on your nations military and economy?

Even more so than the provisions stated in this resolution? Hardly.

Hence the value of a surrender.

Surrender shouldn't punish the victor of a conflict.

You can't fit a WMD in someone's pocket much less that of a child.

Shows how much you don't know about NS, about WMD's, or anything for that matter.

What is the point of invading a nation if not to gain from the money spent and the lives lost? The point IS to gain .. and if such a nation wishes to gain in such ways that involve sex or civil rights infringement .. that's their choice. They did WIN you know.

- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.
- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.
- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.
I just have to say that the stuff I quoted would be a really REALLY bad idea to make law, as for the stuff in red well.. lets just say that they have to be some of the worst ideas that I've EVER heard. I can't see how anyone could have missed it?! :eek:

in WW2, german ppl almost got enought pain just by invasion by other nations. Those german ppl were brainwashed. .

Way to study your history. Hitler was elected by the people, and not under any false pretenses either. He got rid of unemployment, he brought prosperity to Germany, he promised living room... MANY people were for him, without any "brainwashing".

Also, the searching of children clause... it basically says that you can't even search their clothes.

Surrender shouldn't punish the victor of a conflict.It doesn't.
Shows how much you don't know about NS, about WMD's, or anything for that matter.Spare me your cheap insults please, thank you very much.

What is the point of invading a nation if not to gain from the money spent and the lives lost? The point IS to gain .. and if such a nation wishes to gain in such ways that involve sex or civil rights infringement .. that's their choice. They did WIN you know.
I don't know if you're the sick one, or if you're just making your King/President/Whatever sick... but either way... it's sick.

SICK I SAY!

It doesn't.

Yeah, it does. (nice speed edit btw :rolleyes:
Spare me your cheap insults please, thank you very much.
It isn't an insult to call a stupid person stupid.

It isn't an insult to call a stupid person stupid.ElectronX shows his class.





p.s. I repeat... a WMD cannot fit into a childs pocket.

I answered the question about the children in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9198824&postcount=19). The resolution only says you can’t body search them. That means laying hands on them. There is nothing to suggest you can’t ask them to empty their pockets, lift their shirts, etc. Heck you could demand they strip naked if that’s what it takes to satisfy your soldiers that an eight year old isn’t a walking bomb.

As for women searching women I answered that one in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220861&postcount=6). Again this only applies to body searches. I’m female and put that in as a bit of a personal hate. The thought of a strange man wearing an enemy’s uniform patting me down is something I never want to experience. In RL Australia male police aren’t allowed to search female suspects and I’m sure a lot of other countries have similar rules. I decided to apply the same thing in my resolution.


Ok, yes, great, fine. But you need to *PUT THIS IN THE BILL* so that there's no chance of misunderstanding, and all your breath is actually LAW rather than forum talk. I mean, the whole reason of the UN is to MAKE SURE these discussed changes will happen... and make people sign, so that they're bound by the contract/bill they've approved! Don't give them a chance to go back on their answer. That's just bad government.

ElectronX shows his class.

Z0MG AN !n$ULT!





p.s. I repeat... a WMD cannot fit into a childs pocket.
Chemical or biological weapons? Or do they not count as WMD's in Canada6's big book of tactical lunacy?

ElectronX is not even a UN member. Yet here is on the UN forum, verbally insulting a UN member. The nation of Canada6 strongly resents this fact.

ElectronX is not even a UN member. Yet here is on the UN forum, verbally insulting a UN member. The nation of Canada6 strongly resents this fact.
Yet the mods have before stated that it doesn't matter if members of the UN debate or not, thus bringing this point up again further weakens your already weak position.

ElectronX is not even a UN member. Yet here is on the UN forum, verbally insulting a UN member. The nation of Canada6 strongly resents this fact.
The nation of Canada6 needs to work on its imagination. It should come up with a REAL name for its nation, instead of just robbing a real country's of its own and slandering it by being a stuck up dipshit who won't admit to a valid point because the person who made it is "not a UN member". Boo fucking hoo. Grow up.

Chemical or biological weapons? Or do they not count as WMD's in Canada6's big book of tactical lunacy?I believe you are confusing fitting a component of a WMD into a pocket with fitting a WMD into a pocket. A chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction contains a harmfull agent and a device with which to detonate it.

I believe you are confusing fitting a component of a WMD into a pocket with fitting a WMD into a pocket. A chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction contains a harmfull agent and a device with which to detonate it.
And you think that pocket sized WMD's can't do that?

Yet the mods have before stated that it doesn't matter if members of the UN debate or not, thus bringing this point up again further weakens your already weak position.
The strength of my position is not determined by your personal opinion.
The nation of Canada6 needs to work on its imagination. It should come up with a REAL name for its nation, instead of just robbing a real country's of its own and slandering it by being a stuck up dipshit who won't admit to a valid point because the person who made it is "not a UN member". Boo fucking hoo. Grow up.I will be glad to admit to a valid point as soon as I see one. Furthoremore I believe that I am entitled to choose any nation name I god damn please. Especially if it is one based on a personal college nickname.

I believe you are confusing fitting a component of a WMD into a pocket with fitting a WMD into a pocket. A chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction contains a harmfull agent and a device with which to detonate it.

Ricin, anthrax, some sort of plague...

Seriously, did you just crawl out of a hole under a rock in a volcano under a mountain beneath the sea of a lake in an iceberg on top of a peak?

And you think that pocket sized WMD's can't do that?I am unaware of the existance of any pocket sized weapon that can create what I consider to be Mass Destruction.

I will be glad to admit to a valid point as soon as I see one. Furthoremore I believe that I am entitled to choose any nation name I god damn please. Especially if it is one based on a personal college nickname.

While that may be, I live in Canada... and therefore, in some distant way, I am affiliated with you. And that makes me want to crawl into a hole under a rock in a volcano under a mountain beneath the sea of a lake in an iceberg on top of a peak way up in the sky. :)

I am unaware of the existance of any pocket sized weapon that can create what I consider to be Mass Destruction.
THEY CAN ON THIS FORUM

I am unaware of the existance of any pocket sized weapon that can create what I consider to be Mass Destruction.
Well you take one of those crop-dusters, see? And you stuff it with some sort of chemical weapon, and then you spray it all over the fucking place.

No matter what your definition of "mass" is, that ought to cover it. Just get a couple thou of those babies to spread an even layer all over the place and do the job for you.

We don't like the clause "Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police," because we feel that every law should apply equally to people of all genders.

Other than that minor quibble, we wholeheartedly support this resolution.

As for those who are worried about it protecting insurgents, this is a relatively rare war situation, and if there is an armed insurgency going on then it should still be considered a war and as such this resolution would not apply.

THEY CAN ON THIS FORUMWho determines the technological state of weaponry in NS? In that line of reasoning I can argue that Santa Clause exists on this forum.
While that may be, I live in Canada... and therefore, in some distant way, I am affiliated with you. And that makes me want to crawl into a hole under a rock in a volcano under a mountain beneath the sea of a lake in an iceberg on top of a peak way up in the sky. :)I am here to debate the proposal. Not express personal whims.

You are right about these places not having any military value but they have great value to those that use them.

An invading army will make things a lot easier for itself ("terrorist" wise for example) by winning the peace after they win the war. One of the ways they can do that is by giving the conquered people back the places that are important to them. In some nations and cultures religion will be high on the list. As I'm an atheist, I don't pretend to know how valuable a place of worship is but in the aftermarth of a war, living in an invaded nation, friends and family members dead, I am guessing it would be very dear to the hearts of those who believe.

I don't doubt it. But I still think rebuilding hospitals, power plants, water treatment plants, and the infrastructure to deliver these utilities should come before rebuilding places of worship.

Who determines the technological state of weaponry in NS? In that line of reasoning I can argue that Santa Clause exists on this forum.
I am here to debate the proposal. Not express personal whims.

I'm amused that you replied to this post, but ignored my other which offered proof that your remark about pocket-sized WMD is wrong.

Anthrax, Ricin, etc can be sprinkled around rooms, pumped through the air, ingested, and it takes VERY LITTLE to kill you. So a coke-bottle full could kill thousands. Heck, you could go into a Micky D's and put a bit on each burger... that'll create some mass destruction for ya.

I'm amused that you replied to this post, but ignored my other which offered proof that your remark about pocket-sized WMD is wrong.

Anthrax, Ricin, etc can be sprinkled around rooms, pumped through the air, ingested, and it takes VERY LITTLE to kill you. So a coke-bottle full could kill thousands. Heck, you could go into a Micky D's and put a bit on each burger... that'll create some mass destruction for ya.I ignored it becuase I do not think it proves much. But since you insist. If you are lucky you might be able to kill 20 to 30 people with similar methods along with yourself from exposure. Hardly a WMD. The detonation device is still necessary, and without the proper containment devices (unlike coke bottles) the carrier would not have enough time to properly use Ricin or Sarin like substances on anyone.

It scares me that there is a majority that think this resolution is a good idea, what’s worse is the arguments that some of you use. Rogue is starting to look good.

It scares me that there is a majority that think this resolution is a good idea, what’s worse is the arguments that some of you use. Rogue is starting to look good.I fail to see what is so scary about striving to protect civilian's rights. Perhaps you have not stopped once to think that it may be your nation that suffers defeat in war and that may someday directly benefit from this "scary" resolution.

How about explaining your misgivings instead of just criticizing?

I fail to see what is so scary about striving to protect civilian's rights. Perhaps you have not stopped once to think that it may be your nation that suffers defeat in war and that may someday directly benefit from this "scary" resolution.


WON”T, SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

As for my country, well I have a military and since that last resolutions I have Nukes and Chemical weapons and I’m not afraid to use them, and if you do land on my shores then as Winston Churchill said” "We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"


How about explaining your misgivings instead of just criticizing?

Try reading back a few pages you might catch up with the conversation. :mp5:

Uh, Deitenbeck, you might want to look a little closer at the passed resolutions as it's nuclear and biological weapons that are allowed, not chemical.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Way to study your history. Hitler was elected by the people, and not under any false pretenses either. He got rid of unemployment, he brought prosperity to Germany, he promised living room... MANY people were for him, without any "brainwashing".

Also, the searching of children clause... it basically says that you can't even search their clothes.
I would just like to add something to this.

The reason why the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII was such a success was because there was very little resistance from the populous post war. There is no question that this was do to the fact that we left them with no other option but to comply and conform. (Stop fighting or die, do what we say or pay the price) We left them demoralized and beaten with no point or chance to resist. Plus there were no delusions about the rights of the people of a concord nation. The first thing we did in Japan is rip apart the country, disposing of all the weapons, ammunition and explosives we found.

The victors are the ones that get to decide what “rights” the loser does and doesn’t have. I find the whole idea of trying to keep the loser from being demoralized utterly and completely ridiculous. As for the people that say occupation doesn’t work then what about Japan and Germany? The reason why it doesn’t work now is because some people misguidedly think that the loser should have say in anything.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
What exactly are you trying to say here? You posted the entire text of the repeal of the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" resolution and thats supposed to prove, what?
Yes, your smilies are terrifying

Who determines the technological state of weaponry in NS? In that line of reasoning I can argue that Santa Clause exists on this forum.

Yeah, you can.

honestly, i think this proposal is a waste of time.
if a nation wishes to invade, meaning hostile intent just by the act of invading another territory, why would they think of following the guidelines of some law we vote on? it isn't fair that civilians are caught in the middle of this warfare, but it is up to the new power to establish what they feel is necessary.

if non-combatants are allowed to leave a country after an invasion, who would be left? the intruders may have land, but with no population, land is useless.
besides, if the invading power fails to provide the stated services to its new conquest, what actions can we take? can we tell them that they failed and they have to pull out?

i commend the good intentions behind this, as a part of the UN we should all be concerned about the people, but i think it is unrealistic to expect anything from this proposal and its not worth the time for revisions.

I ignored it becuase I do not think it proves much. But since you insist. If you are lucky you might be able to kill 20 to 30 people with similar methods along with yourself from exposure. Hardly a WMD. The detonation device is still necessary, and without the proper containment devices (unlike coke bottles) the carrier would not have enough time to properly use Ricin or Sarin like substances on anyone.
This is NationStates, where their is no set technological standard set in every nation, some are Future Tech who have space ships and Star Fighters, others use simple swords, clubs and catapults to conquer. Your rationalization of WMD technology only applies to Modern Tech, and that isn't even set in stone.

How about explaining your misgivings instead of just criticizing?

Some people have done just that, and logically, too.

The misgivings have been suitably addressed by Waterana, but the fact remains that they are unaddressed in the body of the resolution. Despite the flaws and loopholes, the resolution seems on its way to passage.

I am a new NSUN member, so maybe my way of thinking is somewhat novel, but I think resolutions should only be passed once they've been distilled to their purest form, with little to no loopholes, and certainly nothing glaring. Some of the objections to when individuals can be searched and by whom, and a ban on children being searched, as well as places of worship and certain other places being held to a higher standard of "just cause" (which is undefined and seems to be solely decided by the invading military force) are also troublesome.

Were those issues addressed, Cestus III would definitely vote yes. I cannot speak for the other members who are against this resolution, since my nation has no intention of invading another country in the forseeable future.

The only problem I have with this is the fact that it states that civilians must be treated with respect. Isn't respect in the eye of the beholder and a point of view. How can you punish a country for not showing respect when no guidelines are set?

I fail to see what is so scary about striving to protect civilian's rights. Perhaps you have not stopped once to think that it may be your nation that suffers defeat in war and that may someday directly benefit from this "scary" resolution.

Hey, if you're going to enter this argument 3/4 of the way through and make it personal with a couple of people, the least you could do is check their previous posts so that you don't make misguided accusations. There's nothing scary about striving to protect civilians's rights, as almost every person in this forum has stated. The problem is that you can simply NOT be sure whether a person is a civilian or not - especially if you follow this Bill to the letter -, and you can't prevent real civilians from fake ones if you're not allowed to conduct searches, stop terrorists from bombing and running, or keep secret organizations from blowing your own goddamn troops up along with buildings and people from their own country! Only 2 or 3 people have actually disagreed with the protection of peoples' rights, the rest are genuinely concerned with the human rights of their own citizens which is as it should be considering they are the government and they HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AFTER THEM! Look, one way or another, civilians are going to get hurt. But this bill seems to assume that searching a child, woman, or home is going to involve molestation, rape, and breaking shit apart. That an evil military man will prevent someone from leaving because they want to, not because they're afraid of letting some terrorist get away without being caught/prosecuted/etc. That we're going to start arresting random people because we think we can. That isn't what a country who voluntarily joined the UN would do on a mass scale, or would let happen without any repercussions if they knew about it! (Well, for the most part anyhow.) So since most of us aren't planning on molesting, breaking, or randomly arresting, there is no need to have such extreme measures of protection, in some cases, which could potentially allow thousands of secret groups free reign wherever the hell they want because we may not be able to "justify" their arrest, or their search, or that random kids they probably abducted are stockpiling WMDs in their socks. Many of the points are admirable, but come on, give us a little credit and give us a break! You're so obsessed with this naive post-Iraqi idea about the invader being an evil Michael Jackson-type molestor controlled by an oil-greedy puppet, and poor civilians being robbed of their right to their religion, right to their beliefs, right to their way of life, effectively being crushed in the process of war-making, that you've lost sight of what war actually is. A hard fucking thing to do, where you tear a soldier away from his family, knowing full well that anywhere thy go a kid can walk up to them and throw a grenade in their truck, effectively ending their miserable existance. And it's your fault, because you need to make sure you don't get the shit attacked out of your country again. But you're telling me, ontop of that, you're going to prevent this soldier form doing shit about the odds against him in this hellhole, because you, some bureaucrat thousands of miles away sitting at a nice cushy desk with all your pretty ideas about life and love and war, said he/she can't search this kid's house for weapons, can't arrest his parents for possible involvement in a terrorist group, can't lay a hand on him because he's under 18? FUCK THAT! I don't care about your excuses and justifications anymore, about your attempts at clarifying shit up. "If you think they may be involved in a terrorist organization, that makes them non-combattants and you can search them!" Well fuck, in that case you can search everyone because you NEVER KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER SOMEONE IS INVOLVED OR NOT UNTIL YOU SEE THEM DO SOMETHING BAD! Like throw a bomb in your face. My God, go study the Vietnam war. And then protect the civilians from crazy mothers like you, who'll allow criminals and mass murderers to walk in their midst, abduct their children and train them as soldiers, and all because they haven't been proven guilty by a government that is so fucking afraid of making a mistake and not being re-elected, that it'll sacrifice the lives of so many just to appear democratic and "just". You god damn hippy.

I'm sorry if this offends a great number of you, really and truly. I guess this is where I realise just how bitter I really am in real life. But still... how can you not see!?

this proposal seems pointless, you know?

if somebody were to take over somebody els, theyd do it with espionage.

If you invade a country that means there are only some special ops here and there, and some veterans and off-duty soldiers. not much to deal with.

there it stated

'A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.'

you could pretend to be a civilian. not all soldiers wear uniform.

you could hide all your arms with the children. 'No searches of children are permitted.' Hell, you could hide some rockets with one skinny kid and put a pillow over it, and hide your handgun on a baby.

whoever thought this up was simpleminded, saying the least.

As this proposal looks as though it will pass, the Imperial States of Lodisia having voted no to it...

In the words of Dave Chapelle, "Maybe the UN should send its army.. Oh wait, the UN doesn't have an army, so maybe it should just Shut the %^* up!"

The nation of Vale of Aire has decided to back this proposal, despite obvious loopholes. Sometimes, it is important to support an intention, and this is an honourable one.

The nation of Vale of Aire has decided to back this proposal, despite obvious loopholes. Sometimes, it is important to support an intention, and this is an honourable one.
The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

What happened to the good old days when you invaded a country (or a planet if you're located in space like me), destroyed it as much as you could, randomly shot some citizens to see if the bullets were still working ok and got away with it. It's all because of the soldiers wearing bulletproof vests. You start to wonder if you're shooting blanks or not so you have to check you know. Just to be sure you better try it on a village and see if it works. We're fighting a war, not running a kindergarten ok? Rebuilding houses... we allready left the place?!

Sidenote: I'm either roleplaying or the leader of the republic of China. Just make a pick.

Civilian rights post war


Recognising war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.
.....
That's a part I don't agree : the whole NS setting doesn't *have* "war" in its game, so why lose som any UN energy on a purely hypothetical idea?
An impossible action can hardly be called "inevitable".

- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.
.....
- arrest without just cause ...
- No searches of private homes, ... without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause ...

Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.

ell, the repeated "without just cause" is very much ... limiting the whole thing. What is "just cause" for the occupant ? Is that what would have been "just cause" BEFORE the occupation, or is the occupant allowed to neglect the local laws, and impose hir own ?
(RL example: Iran succeeds in taking over USa, immediately instores the so-called "islamic" laws in effect inside Iran ... )

And a second point: why the sexist wording about "body searching" ?
Traditionally armies, police forces etc, known to "body search" people, have been mostly male-staffed institutions, but this resolution will have all males "subject to body search" when the Amazones conquer a nation. "Just cause" there may as well be lust, if *their*laws are in effect.

Most of this proposal looks very original, though.
Congatulatins.

It scares me that there is a majority that think this resolution is a good idea, what’s worse is the arguments that some of you use. Rogue is starting to look good.

Let me quess you foted yes to the 2 resolutions that came before...
You like to use your weapons to play with your nukes, but you dont like to clean up the mess?

I say it again human rights do never changes.
And if you are afraid of an child that possibly is wearing an bom, or (funny really funny) pocketsized chemical weapon.
Then just dont start that war! This is the price that will be paid.

And one more time...if you scan ppl...you are SCANNING damm stupid brains..
if you like to live like an bureaucrate an read everything exactly like its written
then you should know that bureaucrates are very good in avoiding written law when its up to their own profit. Sooo resolution didnt say that scanning is illegal so?
I hope some ppl start to think now!
You may scan! And our nation of BloodFever is paying for every single stuk of equipment you should need to clean up YOUR mess!

The victors are the ones that get to decide what “rights” the loser does and doesn’t have. I find the whole idea of trying to keep the loser from being demoralized utterly and completely ridiculous. As for the people that say occupation doesn’t work then what about Japan and Germany? The reason why it doesn’t work now is because some people misguidedly think that the loser should have say in anything.

Loser? who hell says that ppl in defeated country are loosers?
They are victims of the war! VICTIMS!
They suffer! We are talking about rights of ppl who didnt wanted to harm nobody!
And again...Hitler sure brainwashed his ppl. Everyone who stands in the way was eliminated immidiatly

so and searching women by women is just right way of doing it
again they are victims unless its proved by the law
and taking then to place where privacy is is not dumb its smart that way in case of explosion less ppl will be hurt if explosion takes place inside of an bunker for example

The only problem I have with this is the fact that it states that civilians must be treated with respect. Isn't respect in the eye of the beholder and a point of view. How can you punish a country for not showing respect when no guidelines are set?

Punish country? We are not living in the dark ages of camelot anymore sorry.
This days even in war you have to explain every single deathcase. No matter or its suffered by your troops or by civilians.
And respect...respect is personal.
Unless you say that Saddam was THE COUNTRY and not just another dictator.

What happened to the good old days when you invaded a country (or a planet if you're located in space like me), destroyed it as much as you could, randomly shot some citizens to see if the bullets were still working ok and got away with it. It's all because of the soldiers wearing bulletproof vests. You start to wonder if you're shooting blanks or not so you have to check you know. Just to be sure you better try it on a village and see if it works. We're fighting a war, not running a kindergarten ok? Rebuilding houses... we allready left the place?!

Sidenote: I'm either roleplaying or the leader of the republic of China. Just make a pick.

I know thats its hardly onderstand for someone from Planet of the Apes!

Hey, if you're going to enter this argument 3/4 of the way through and make it personal with a couple of people, the least you could do is check their previous posts so that you don't make misguided accusations. This thread was merged with another one that allready existed, however I was one of the very first supporters of this proposals. Furthermore I have not made one single accusation on this thread.

There's nothing scary about striving to protect civilians's rights, as almost every person in this forum has stated. The problem is that you can simply NOT be sure whether a person is a civilian or not - especially if you follow this Bill to the letter -, and you can't prevent real civilians from fake ones if you're not allowed to conduct searches, stop terrorists from bombing and running, or keep secret organizations from blowing your own goddamn troops up along with buildings and people from their own country! This resolution will still allow an occupying army to prevent those actions. I don't see were the problem is.

But this bill seems to assume that searching a child, woman, or home is going to involve molestation, rape, and breaking shit apart. This proposal doesn't assume anything as much as it will stand for protecting those who are most vulnerable in post war scenarios. Women and children.

But you're telling me, ontop of that, you're going to prevent this soldier form doing shit about the odds against him in this hellhole, because you, some bureaucrat thousands of miles away sitting at a nice cushy desk with all your pretty ideas about life and love and war, said he/she can't search this kid's house for weapons, can't arrest his parents for possible involvement in a terrorist group, can't lay a hand on him because he's under 18? {Expletive deleted}That is not what this resolution proposes.
The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.I believe that war is the only hell that truly exists.

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


then everyone should be in hell :(

LOL~...anywae....tis resolution is pretty much pointless...no matter how honourable the intention of one is...i was jus wondering how on earth one would go about enforcing this regulation??

after all...should one country choose to invade another, who are we to dictate terms to the the aggressor??

and anywae, shouldn't we be helping as in under the name of the UN help liberate the victims??

LANCE, Minister in Standing For Relations to all, Free Land of Singapore :p

to survive the outcome:

Ok,

Here, let me explain this again for those of you who are coming in late.

We have here a proposal set forth and endorsed by a conglomerate of nations that know that they are too mamby pansy to fight and win a war because their nations are:

1) taxed to apathy

2) without morale

3) have no discipline

So to prepare for their inevetable invasion, they have thrown together a rule so that they won't get bitch-slapped so much.

Let me tell you: You have more liberals in the UN so that this will probably pass. But on the other hand, if one of you liberal nations piss of a (UN-member) conservative nation to the point of war, do you really think you can let your terrorists claim being civillians and get away with some minor attacks?

It worked against America, but I don't think any other nation will let themselves be that naive.

Please vote NO against this resolution

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

But on the other hand, if one of you liberal nations piss of a (UN-member) conservative nation to the point of war, do you really think you can let your terrorists claim being civillians and get away with some minor attacks?

It worked against America, but I don't think any other nation will let themselves be that naive.I'm confused. Would you be so kind as to point out exactly what liberal nation has carried out such a method against America?

I'm confused. Would you be so kind as to point out exactly what liberal nation has carried out such a method against America?

:mad:

Well, For that message I was talking 2 points

#1 The liberal UN members here are so soft so whacko that eventually one of you nations will piss the hell out of a conservative nation to the point that war will be inevitable.

#2 I was using the aftermath of the Iraqian invasion by America to prove the point that this UN proposal does not work.

Now, as far as your concerned Canada6 (what the first 5 copies didn't work out too well???), Your plagerized namesake nation seems to be leeching off America (for better healthcare) and for money---So even that farther left nation isn't doing too well

Thank you for letting me elaborate ;) ,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

to survive the outcome:

Ok,

Here, let me explain this again for those of you who are coming in late.

We have here a proposal set forth and endorsed by a conglomerate of nations that know that they are too mamby pansy to fight and win a war because their nations are:

1) taxed to apathy

2) without morale

3) have no discipline

So to prepare for their inevetable invasion, they have thrown together a rule so that they won't get bitch-slapped so much.

Let me tell you: You have more liberals in the UN so that this will probably pass. But on the other hand, if one of you liberal nations piss of a (UN-member) conservative nation to the point of war, do you really think you can let your terrorists claim being civillians and get away with some minor attacks?

It worked against America, but I don't think any other nation will let themselves be that naive.

Please vote NO against this resolution

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I was wondering how long it would take the conservative vs liberal stuff to rear its ugly head in this thread. I've been looking at the delegates who have voted for this resolution and believe it or not some are conservatives. I'll bet there are some you like to call "liberal" who have voted against it too.

This resolution, doesn't give a toss about whether the nations involved in the war are conservative, liberal or anything else. It doesn't care who started the war, it doesn't care what the political standing of the governments of the nations involved are. It doesn't care what reasons or events started the war. All it cares about are the innocent civilians caught up in the war and doesn't take effect until the war is over. If a nation decides to implement it before the cessation of hostilities then they can, but that will be their choice.

If you want to believe all non-combatants are "terrorists" until they convince you otherwise then thats your choice and right but thankfully the majority don't agree with you.

Just to throw a spanner into the conservative vs liberal battle. In Australia the liberals are conservatives.

[QUOTE=Waterana]This resolution, doesn't give a toss about whether the nations involved in the war are conservative, liberal or anything else. It doesn't care who started the war, it doesn't care what the political standing of the governments of the nations involved are. It doesn't care what reasons or events started the war. All it cares about are the innocent civilians caught up in the war and doesn't take effect until the war is over. If a nation decides to implement it before the cessation of hostilities then they can, but that will be their choice.QUOTE]

This is where liberalism viewpoints versus conservatism viewpoints come into play:

A nation is only as strong as its citizentry. If the citizens don't like their nation they can coop, leave (there has been many stories of refugees all over the globe--Hey look at America and read what's on the statue of liberty for example) or vote out it's politicians.

So with that said, after a nation is defeated in a war and the conquering nation is trying to establish whatever government the deem fit there, if there appears concern from a defeated nation's citizentry...Well then I see no problem whatsover in the conquering nation doing whatever it deems neccessary to protect themselves.

But like I said before you liberals outnumber the UN. You liberals are to dumb to realize that the real world likes to use you. And you liberals are a shield for conservatives like The City by the Live Sea to hide behind and throw you to fodder if a major world war does ever occur.

Thank you for letting me elaborate

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I guess thats one of the differences between rightists and leftists. Leftists want to try to improve the world and make it better for everyone, while the rightists want to return to the dark ages where human life is worth nothing. At least thats what I'm seeing from some of the opposition posts in this thread.

"-No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause. "

What guidelines decide a just vs. unjust cause? Is there a way to follow up these searches to ensure they were justified? Is there a way for the searched to lodge complaints or anything like that?

On the other side of things, the people were conquered...they let the enemy invade and made a conscious decision to let them walk all over their nation without resisting. I say they deserve to be pillaged, held without trial, and all the other things this bill intends to protect them from. What, did they think nothing bad would happen if an invading army were left to its vices in a foreign land with foreign people?

There are those who would welcome rule by another nation, and those who would oppose it but stand idly by while their countrymen perish in a blaze of glory. I propose we scrap this bill and instead put together a post-war committee to sort out the quiet patriots from the rest. Then, the invading army can have their way with the homes and businesses of the said citizens.

But like I said before you liberals outnumber the UN. You liberals are to dumb to realize that the real world likes to use you. And you liberals are a shield for conservatives like The City by the Live Sea to hide behind and throw you to fodder if a major world war does ever occur.

Thank you for letting me elaborate

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
Yelda: Defence: $7,499,593,103,385.60
The City by the Live S: Defence: $355,281,371,078.40
And yet...Yelda supports this. Think about that.

"-No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause. "

What guidelines decide a just vs. unjust cause? Is there a way to follow up these searches to ensure they were justified? Is there a way for the searched to lodge complaints or anything like that?

just cause
1 : cause that a person of ordinary intelligence would consider a fair and reasonable justification for an act

I would love to have been able to elaborate on these two words and extend on what is and isn't allowed under them, but UN proposals have a character limit and as the author I considered getting as many protections for the civilians in as more important.

[QUOTE=Waterana]Civilian rights post war

- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.

It is a well known fact that children are often used in the smuggling of illegal materials, such as weapons, drugs, etc. Define children and situations in which this restriction is voided. (Note: I was twelve the first time I shot a gun, just because someone's young doesn't make them not dangerous.)

Also, there is not always a female soldier present to search a female in hostile or otherwise potentially dangerous situation in which a female may need to be searched.

Yelda: Defence: $7,499,593,103,385.60
The City by the Live S: Defence: $355,281,371,078.40

And yet...Yelda supports this. Think about that.

Sir... I think I love you. :D

Are any concessions put forth that address with combatants after the fact? Standing armies must be dealt with humanely.

Are any concessions put forth that address with combatants after the fact? Standing armies must be dealt with humanely.

If you mean prisoners of war then yes its covered here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32).

OOC: Wahyoo! First post!
IC: I've read all 13 pages of this topic. Both sides present good points. But, what I have gathered from the those opposing the resolution are taking on an extremest point of view. They are trying to say that ALL persons in a conquered nation are insurgents. They are wrong. If you look through out history, most insurgents are a minority. During WW2, for example, the French Resitance was disliked by most of the population. Another example is in Iraq. Most of the population just wants to get on with their lives. They do not want either the US or the insurgents in their nation blowing it up.
About the children. No one said that you couldn't SCAN them. As one nation said several times, by using modern(or future) scaners, you can help lower the risk of a suicide bomber. also, once you have detected the weapon/ammo/whatever, you can move them somewhere else and then search them, without a body search. Just by removing some clothing will allow you to see weither or not they have a bomb/ammo/weapon/whatever.
About just cause, just cause is all in the eye of the beholder. If, hypothicly, the armed forces of Nation A think that a house may be holding insurgents, then they have just cause to search the house. The just cause is that they may be stopping future attacks on either them or the population they are protecting.
I believe that this is a well made proposal, with very little error. As the author said, she ran out of room to put it all in. You have my suport.

Your all takeing too much to heart, an insurgent is someone who has the nessacary equipment, and the will to go agaist you. A scanner is alright, a glock 9 pistol is made of porcieln, and it undetectable. If someones uses it you'll never see it coming. :mp5:

#1 The liberal UN members here are so soft so whacko that eventually one of you nations will piss the hell out of a conservative nation to the point that war will be inevitable.And your point is?

#2 I was using the aftermath of the Iraqian invasion by America to prove the point that this UN proposal does not work.The invasion of Iraq was not supported by the UN. And what the USA is doing in Iraq isn't exactly what is being proposed in this resolution. A far better comparison would be the Post WW2 Marshall Plan. That worked.

Now, as far as your concerned Canada6 (what the first 5 copies didn't work out too well???), Your plagerized namesake nation seems to be leeching off America (for better healthcare) and for money---So even that farther left nation isn't doing too well[/COLOR]
*offtopic... My nation name as I have previously stated is a personal college nickname of mine.

The statement that RL Canada is leeching off of America is laughable. I can't honestly remember the last time Canada did not have a hefty surpluss in it's budget. I think we've had something like seven in a row. America will not have surpluss until Bush's term ends.

I'm new, so how is war even declared?

This proposal is a statement of intent. People concerned about innocents - even on the enemy's side, will take it to heart and live by it's rules. Whacko's with guns will allways find a way of explaining their actions that shows they had just cause.
Hey, if I want to invade and oppress, I can say you have nukes and biologicals, and afterwards claim my intelligence was wrong, sorry, my bad...

I vote against, my reasons are :

*Women has to be searched in front of other females, what's wrong with being searched by men? All modern countries has male police officers who on a daily basis searches women.

*Children cannot be searched. -Just stupid, so any child could then conceal any weapon or even have a huge paiload attached to his body?

I believe that war is the only hell that truly exists.

Heh, I guess drowsy-making Nyquil and no sleep makes me pissy.

If war is the only hell that truly exists, to you, then why are you so hellbent on making it SO DIFFICULT for the troops your government hypothetically sent there, increasing the odds against them because of your ridiculous ideas?

I could keep writing, but I'll just be re-hashing the same points over and over and over again. In the end, the loopholes are just way too big for me, the chance for abuse of these loopholes is even bigger, the excuse that there wasn't enough character space isn't good enough because you could just make Part II of the bill, and I'll never back anything that is based on some naive fantasy about what war really is. Too many of you are being influenced by this "war" in Iraq, and the media pointing out all the bad things that happened there... Why don't you check out some other wars? You know, ones where citizens were helped even though there were restrictions on their rights at first? Now, no need to start spewing information on World Wars and Hitler, but go search, say, Japan after WWII if you want to see how the US was involved in making Japan's economy and work force one of the best, today. Or Vietnam, if you want to understand how it feels to be a soldier in that place. Very few of you seem to understand the situation that soldiers are in, and even less have ACTUAL compassion for them. I, for one, can even feel slight pity for the jailers at the Abu Ghraib prison (the ones who took all the pictures... you know...) Those people had to see Iraqis as "the enemy", shoot their guns and their bombs and whatever other ammunition at them. Killing them is what made them good soldiers. Now you try being in charge of a couple of them, many of whom probably shot up your friends, maybe your family, and see if you'd want to treat them like your best friends in the whole wide world. Now, I'm not saying what they did was ok and I'm certainly not trying to justify it, but at least try to look at it past the indignation and think like a psychiatist. See that they probably wouldn't have been like this at home, a few months earlier, with familiar surroundings and family all around. People need to stop victimizing the citizens of invaded countries so much... Because we've been doing that SO MUCH lately that we're entirely forgetting about giving a little support to the troops that are in there. They're your responsibility after all, and you have a duty to protect them before you protect citizens of another country. I'm sorry, but that's just the ugly truth about war, government, and all the rest. Priorities, and if you're governing a country your priority needs to be your own people. Which doesn't mean blow up everyone else, but still. Keep it in mind.

Finally, you can say that you think war is hell all you want, but you don't act like it at all.

This proposal is a statement of intent. People concerned about innocents - even on the enemy's side, will take it to heart and live by it's rules. Whacko's with guns will allways find a way of explaining their actions that shows they had just cause.
Hey, if I want to invade and oppress, I can say you have nukes and biologicals, and afterwards claim my intelligence was wrong, sorry, my bad...
Then I don't understand why you all evidently refuse to try to tighten up the bill, and prevent those whackos with guns from appearing concerned with peace because they signed the bill, then allow them to take advantage of all the loopholes.

I believe that war is the only hell that truly exists.
Swing and a miss.

Loser? who hell says that ppl in defeated country are loosers?
They are victims of the war! VICTIMS!
They suffer! We are talking about rights of ppl who didnt wanted to harm nobody!
And again...Hitler sure brainwashed his ppl. Everyone who stands in the way was eliminated immidiatly

so and searching women by women is just right way of doing it
again they are victims unless its proved by the law
and taking then to place where privacy is is not dumb its smart that way in case of explosion less ppl will be hurt if explosion takes place inside of an bunker for example
"Loser" as in the side that lost the war............ :|

As for the rest of your post... All I can say is that I hope you're having fun in your little dream world.

His magnificence, the great Imperator of the Holy Empire of Quintinland must respectfully decline supporting the resolution currently put before the United Nations. As written it contains far too many loopholes and far too few definitions for terms and phrases contained within. The Imperator certainly understands that this is partially a result of the overly restrictive rules regarding the length of UN proposals. However, his eminence feels that perhaps this indicates that the resolution as a whole should be trimmed and its language tightened instead of being passed in its current imperfect state.

Additionally, many of the reassurances given in this thread by the resolution's supporters are in contradiction to its current wording. While we are assured that we can question any non-combatant who wants to leave the country, the resolution clearly states, "No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take". Even a brief delay for questioning can be considered to be "preventing" an individual from leaving. And what if there is truly just cause for detaining a non-combatant for an extended period of time? What if the non-combatant is a wanted criminal because of crimes (violent or otherwise) against his own people? Additionally, the term "personal possessions" is far too vague for the Imperator's comfort. According to this resolution, non-combatants can insist that they be allowed to load their own homes on flatbed trucks and drive them out of the country. The great and powerful Imperator does not think it ludicrous to disallow such actions that will be disruptive to the well-being of citizens of occupied territories.

While supporters insist that children can be asked to turn out their pockets, the resolution makes it quite clear that should a child refuse, soldiers of the occupying nation would have no authority to enforce their request. This makes that suggestion rather hollow indeed. Further, there is no definition of "child" contained in this resolution, as there is in the "Child Labor", "The Child Protection Act", or "Children in War"... all of which possess contradictory interpretations of the term (12, 16, and 18 years of age). After all, everyone is someone's child. Even the mighty Imperator was someone's child, before he had his parents executed for blasphemy.

And though the omniscient and omnipotent Imperator of the Holy Empire of Quintinland appreciates the idea behind rebuilding a conquered nation's infrastructure, he cannot support that idea that this should include any places of worship or business that may have been accidentally destroyed in the conflict (or damaged specifically by insurgents). For one, asking the people of Quintinland to assist in the construction or repair of heathen temples would be at serious odds with their own faith. Additionally, the "businesses" in question might be harmful to the Holy Empire of Quintinland and its troops, or illegal under our nation's laws, yet the resolution contains no exemptions for these things. Despite promises given in this discussion, the text of the resolution is clear and the Holy Empire of Quintinland could be held in breach of this resolution for not rebuilding a munitions factory in the center of occupied territory! Imagine such a thing!

Finally, the phrase "just cause" is used too often and too vaguely to offer any actual protections for the provisions that contain it. Certainly the idea of "just cause" to a seasoned career military officer will differ from those of a pampered United Nations ambassador whose only tough choice is whether to have the filet or the duck for dinner.

In conclusion, I would ask that my fellow delegates vote against the resolution in its current form so that we may debate a stronger and better proposal that does an effective job at protecting non-combatants without undo restrictions on necessary military action.


Signed on behalf of his excellency, the Imperator of the Holy Empire of Quintinland

If war is the only hell that truly exists, to you, then why are you so hellbent on making it SO DIFFICULT for the troops your government hypothetically sent there, increasing the odds against them because of your ridiculous ideas?You believe this resolution makes it difficult for the troops... I don't.
Finally, you can say that you think war is hell all you want, but you don't act like it at all.Acting like war is hell in conformity with your beliefs would be what?

I'm guessing... letting the victorious nation do whatever they please?

For me it's making it easier for everyone involved. This resolution protects civilians period.

Why should the victor be penalized for being victorious in war? While regulations against any active negative behavior towards the population are justified, why should the victor be forced to take a positive role in a conquered country? The losses suffered as a result of the war are the responsibility of the defeated nation!

I vote against, my reasons are :

*Women has to be searched in front of other females, what's wrong with being searched by men? All modern countries has male police officers who on a daily basis searches women.

*Children cannot be searched. -Just stupid, so any child could then conceal any weapon or even have a huge paiload attached to his body?

That is so true, I fully agree with you. *coughVietnamcough*. Also, what if the invading nation has a poor economy? They might be worse off than the nation that was invaded if they have to restore power and water quickly. The invader nation should help, but they shouldn't be forced to.

:gundge: [QUOTE=Canada6]
*offtopic... My nation name as I have previously stated is a personal college nickname of mine.QUOTE]

First of all, my military comanda and I boarded the CBLS's flagship and went to Canada6:

When we arrived we realized the worst:

The place looked just like Quebec which instantly meant "Not only am I a copy cat of Canada, but of France as well.

After studying france's history we realized that we were corresponding with a nation (Now I am refering to Canada6) that expects to be captured in a war and will need protection that this proposition offers.

The safe thing to note here is that I believe with all my heart that whoever is bored enough to want to break the monotony and capture Canada6, you will have no problems with its citizentry rebelling against you...They are taught from a young age to accept the fate of getting conquered--And besides that they will probably be relieved in the knowledge that they might have a humanistic tax rate when thing are said and done

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I repeat... a WMD cannot fit into a childs pocket.<Ambassador checks with military laison; they confer in hushed whispers, looking around to make sure no one is eavesdropping>

"Er ... precisely how big is this child's pocket?"

I am unaware of the existance of any pocket sized weapon that can create what I consider to be Mass Destruction.<More whispering back and forth, many furtive looks, some gesturing>

"Uh ... maybe we shouldn't ... some things ... uh ...

<Bucks up courage>

"Would something in the 1-3 hectotonne range be 'mass' enough for the ambassador from Canada6?"

I'm sorry if this offends a great number of you, really and truly. I guess this is where I realise just how bitter I really am in real life. But still... how can you not see!?OOC: First, I'm largely in sympathy with you 'Dox - but I also think that this is basically good legislation; unfortunately, it's also still deeply flawed. Let me add a few comments that I think will be helpful to everyone. I'll use 'Dox's post as a guide for this.

(Oh, and BTW 'Dox - huge blocks of unbroken text are REALLY hard to read. My advice is to break it up into digestible chunks.)
Look, one way or another, civilians are going to get hurt. But this bill seems to assume that searching a child, woman, or home is going to involve molestation, rape, and breaking shit apart. That an evil military man will prevent someone from leaving because they want to, not because they're afraid of letting some terrorist get away without being caught/prosecuted/etc. That we're going to start arresting random people because we think we can. That isn't what a country who voluntarily joined the UN would do on a mass scale, or would let happen without any repercussions if they knew about it! (Well, for the most part anyhow.)Well, I was a Trotskyite in a past life, so ... ;)

The real problem is this: in the wake of conquest, there is still going to be some resistance, especially if there's going to be any kind of prolonged occupation. In fact, I think that people need to step back and ask why there was so little resistance in Germany and Japan after WWI (well, actually, there was resistance in Germany (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/Werwolf.htm), but it was badly organized and got stamped out fast). The best reason I can come up with was that the Axis powers were so thoroughly defeated in 1945 that it was obvious to most everyone that resistance was pointless.

Score one for carpet bombing and nuclear weapons.

But the use of blitzkrieg tactics in modern war has produced a paradoxical side-effect: the lightning defeat of a nation's military often leaves its civilian populace unconvinced that the defeat was "genuine", since the defeat seems more the product of trickery (or treachery) than a good, solid thumping. This paves the way for a postwar insurgency (cf., Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, etc.), and here is where we run into real trouble.

The first thing a guerrilla wants is to prove that the authorities are powerless to stop him. Tying the hands of the occupation force in the name of protecting the occupied populace, then, has an unintended side effect: it gives the insurgent a better chance of establishing himself as a viable challenger to the army of occupation. This opens the door to nationalist recruitment, while also making reconstruction by the occupier harder, which draws out the occupation longer, which provokes nationalist resentment of the occupiers - can you say "vicious cycle"?

Next, the guerrilla wants to agitate the occupying forces. Brutal, vicious murders of occupation forces or their allies, terror attacks, etc., all serve to up the emotional ante while continuing to assert that the occupier really can't hold the country after all. Here, the more outrageous the attack, the better. As a guerrilla, you want to get the occupier good and mad. You want to make him see red. You want that because he's liable to crack down, and when he does he'll make enemies of the people he's trying to control, which will make your recruitment of them easier.

Moral equivalence is another powerful weapon, especially against liberal occupiers. By provoking them to illiberal measures, you prove them hypocrites and also succeed in bringing them down to your moral level (which effectively brings you up to theirs). Once you and your enemy are morally equivalent, other factors - like nationalist feeling and resentment against a foreign occupier - will give you the advantage you need to "telescope" (Trotsky's word) the terrorist campaign into a full-bore insurgency and then - ultimately - civil war.

So the paradox: if the occupier is too harsh, he will alienate the populace and be (eventually) ejected; if too soft, he leaves himself vulnerable to attack, against which he will eventually need to take reprisal, alienating the populace and proving himself a wimp and a hypocrite to boot (the only thing worse than being hated is being hated and simultaneously seen as weak).

Thus the logic behind Dox's assertion:
So since most of us aren't planning on molesting, breaking, or randomly arresting, there is no need to have such extreme measures of protection, in some cases, which could potentially allow thousands of secret groups free reign wherever the hell they want because we may not be able to "justify" their arrest, or their search, or that random kids they probably abducted are stockpiling WMDs in their socks. Many of the points are admirable, but come on, give us a little credit and give us a break! You're so obsessed with this naive post-Iraqi idea about the invader being an evil Michael Jackson-type molestor controlled by an oil-greedy puppet, and poor civilians being robbed of their right to their religion, right to their beliefs, right to their way of life, effectively being crushed in the process of war-making, that you've lost sight of what war actually is.Without getting into a political argument over Iraq, I would advise students of guerrilla/terrorist tactics to study what goes on over there, because the entire dynamic I've described above is laid bare. It's ugly, and while I sympathise with those wishing to mandate "proper" treatment of civilians, I'm not sure that erring on the side of liberality really does them any service - not if it allows the occupation to become another stage in the recently "terminated" war...

IC:"Allemande is neutral on this legislation and has decided to neither vote for it or against it."

The ambassador continued. "What this Resolution does, from our perspective, is raise the costs of occupation beyond the point where it is worthwhile. Now, while we believe that some in this body view that as a victory - since these people probably hold to the misguided belief that all occupation is aggression - we see it as forcing all wars, offensive or defensive - to end the same way."

"Henceforth, it will be Allemande's policy to gain the upper hand in war, so as to conduct a series of successful decapitation strikes aimed at leaving our enemies without effective government. In these attacks, we will target the enemy's leadership and governmental infrastructure, as well as its criminal justice system, down to the municipal level (by bombing town halls, courthouses, police stations, jails, etc.). The goal will be to produce anarchy and - ultimately - foment civil war across the length and breadth of our former foe's territory. At that stage, we can declare victory and go home. After that, through periodic injections of money and weaponry to factions that we will declare to be "democratic freedom fighters", we should be able to keep the pot boiling for years, if not decades.

"This is certainly preferable to a long and costly occupation that will only result in the rebirth of our enemy, like a phoenix from the ashes, now more implacable than ever before thanks to the mobilisation of his populace through partisan warfare.

"Allemande will not allow itself to get sucked into a Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Rather than a Marshall Plan for our fallen foes, we will turn them all into Somalias."

<Ambassador sighs and looks at watch before starting to speak>

The Holy Empire of Gravlen has followed the ongoing discussion with great interest, as this is an issue of importance. However, we feel that the discussions presented here resently has both gone off topic and has had a tendency towards rudeness. While not wanting to point fingers or take sides, we urge all delegates to keep a cool head and not bring their personal arguements to this thread.

With that said, and with the danger of provoking the wrath of some other delegates, we cannot help but to be curious to know how a study of the history of France would indicate that any nation would expect to be captured in a war? Our cultural attaché has not been able to explain this to us.

Further, we note that there is a difference of opinion among some of the delegates regarding several different issues, among them what will qualify as a "Weapon of mass destruction", and if this could fit in a childs pocket. The first question at least is a difficult one, and it will be interesting to see if anything worthwhile will come from these discussions.

We feel that some of the (more agressive) arguements given by previous delegates underline the need for a resolution regarding the protection of civilians in the aftermath of a conflict. However, The Holy Empire of Gravlen will still abstain from casting our vote on this resolution, due to the reasons we have mentioned earlier.

All Hail!

Thor Lynson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

An occupied nation, whether occupied by a military government or otherwise, always needs to address the issue of non-combatant citizens. However, the problem of non-combatants is a far greater problem than one might originally imagine. For example, what defines a combatant in war? Hitler, in World War Two, never saw military action, only directed it. But we all know that Hitler was the perpetrator of the holocaust and the direct cause of the 30 million deaths Europe suffered. So then, on a lesser note, how do community leaders who never bore arms but directed the thoughts and ideals of their community rank? Are these people non-combatants? The concrete answer to this would be 'no' these people were not combatants in the sense that they never fought. However, while not members of the fighting population, these 'non-combatants' were just as lethal. Through their charisma and public standing these community leaders are often able to avoid the real fighting and instead fight war through their powers of persuasion and ability to incite the general public. Consequently, while not trained soldiers, or fighters for that matter, these members of society are just as dangerous as combatants. These people can incite guerrilla style resistance that can both hinder, and in some cases defeat the invading army. Moreover, these people come from all forms of life, from politicians to teachers, to clergy members and idealistic youth. It is thus imperative that the UN realises the potential danger posed by non-combatants and legislate to nullify the potential danger they can cause.
It is essential that this be undertaken on top of the drive to push for non-combatant rights, otherwise any defeated nation could easily develop into another Weimar and pose a threat to the thousands of other Nation States.

:gundge:
First of all, my military comanda and I boarded the CBLS's flagship and went to Canada6:

When we arrived we realized the worst:

The place looked just like Quebec which instantly meant "Not only am I a copy cat of Canada, but of France as well.

After studying france's history we realized that we were corresponding with a nation (Now I am refering to Canada6) that expects to be captured in a war and will need protection that this proposition offers.

The safe thing to note here is that I believe with all my heart that whoever is bored enough to want to break the monotony and capture Canada6, you will have no problems with its citizentry rebelling against you...They are taught from a young age to accept the fate of getting conquered--And besides that they will probably be relieved in the knowledge that they might have a humanistic tax rate when thing are said and donelol?

<More whispering back and forth, many furtive looks, some gesturing>

"Uh ... maybe we shouldn't ... some things ... uh ...

<Bucks up courage>

"Would something in the 1-3 hectotonne range be 'mass' enough for the ambassador from Canada6?"
You are telling me a child can safely carry a complete fully assembled and ready to deploy nuclear weapon in his pocket in an unsuspicous manner? I think not.

While this ambassador from Shienarian fully supports this proposal and has already voiced said support, he feel he must comment on a slight, yet crucially important omission. Let it be stated now that this ambassador harbours no ill will for having missed such an important element, yet in these turbulent times, he feels he must interject on behalf of all homosexuals everywhere.

Civilian rights post war

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group.



This delegate believes that the clause should read:

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, sexuality, age, position in society, religion or cultural group.

Thank you for listening any comments would be appreciated.

While this ambassador from Shienarian fully supports this proposal and has already voiced said support, he feel he must comment on a slight, yet crucially important omission. Let it be stated now that this ambassador harbours no ill will for having missed such an important element, yet in these turbulent times, he feels he must interject on behalf of all homosexuals everywhere.

This delegate believes that the clause should read:

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, sexuality, age, position in society, religion or cultural group.

Thank you for listening any comments would be appreciated.

Yes, you have a point. It should have been included and I'm sorry I missed it. There was no deliberate ommison however, it was just that I didn't think of it at the time I wrote the resolution :).

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431458) is a thread on a current repeal incase this one passes. Input is welcom since this new resoultion is a bit ruff before i officaly send it in.


HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431458)

I vote against, my reasons are :

*Women has to be searched in front of other females, what's wrong with being searched by men? All modern countries has male police officers who on a daily basis searches women.


Then your reasoning may be flawed if you consider the United States a modern country:

http://www.justicetraining.com/Deland/courses/LegalIssuesSample/8.sexual%20privacy.htm

The following statement from this site agrees with your opinion, "Some courts have taken the position that prisoners have little or no lawful expectation of sexual privacy."

However the following statement from the same site disagrees with your opinion, "Other courts have recognized that, in fact, some right to sexual privacy exists for prisoners."

Given that the page then goes on to talk about reasonable accommodation and later goes on to talk about opposite gender searches. In fact, there is a larger body of examples of restraint issued for female prisoners when being searched by male guards than the opposite way around. All of the US legal decisions supporting both POVs are presented.

In any event, I do believe your generalization really isn't fair to the author, as his / her intent was to introduce the idea of granting people some protection. And in this case, it is hard to suggest that these are criminals, but rather simply civilians, not unlike those passing through an airport.

So let's focus not on criminals, but rather simple civilians whom are in high risk places, just like an airport. In Sept. 2004, the US Transportation Security Agency adopted more aggressive search criteria ...

The conservative Fox News has the following article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139959,00.html

Rhonda Gaynier, a New York real-estate lawyer, was flying home from Tampa, Fla., and passing through airport security (search) when she was asked to step aside for additional screening.

What happened next shocked her: Using an open hand, a security agent touched her on her shoulders, under her arms, around her waist, across her bra strap, and between her breasts, Gaynier said — all in front of other passengers.

My point here is to illustrate that the idea of simple opposite gender searches is something that will bother people in "modern nations".

This is not an isolated incident. Complaints about airport pat downs are really frequent in the United States.

Here is another example (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/23/news/frisk.html):

NEW YORK: At an airport security checkpoint in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the actress Patti LuPone recalled, she was recently instructed to remove articles of clothing. "I took off my belt, I took off my clogs, I took off my leather jacket," she said. "But when the screener said, 'Now take off your shirt,' I hesitated. I said, 'But I'll be exposed!"' When she persisted in her complaints, she said, she was barred from her flight.

What is interesting, is that as I'm reading up on this, I'm having a hard time finding on-line accountings of men being asked to pull their boxers down.

I voted against because of my concern of the situation of a country winning the conflict after another nation had initiated the war. I dont feel it fair for an attacked nation to have to pay to fix it's aggresors loses. You may want to think of working something about that in there. Thanx for the topic.

I guess thats one of the differences between rightists and leftists. Leftists want to try to improve the world and make it better for everyone, while the rightists want to return to the dark ages where human life is worth nothing. At least thats what I'm seeing from some of the opposition posts in this thread.


I'm against the proposal, but mainly because I don't think the NSUN should vote on proposals that haven't had all their ambiguous wording or loopholes worked out yet. The searches issue is obviously one many people have misgivings about, and the "just cause" clauses are likely to have little to no effect at all.

I believe that the resolution should be voted aganst beacause of the restriction of searches of children. That would allow brainwashed or other wise persuaded children to be used as weapons.

You are telling me a child can safely carry a complete fully assembled and ready to deploy nuclear weapon in his pocket in an unsuspicous manner? I think not.<More whispers, some gesturing, quite a lot of head shaking and nodding, in conflict with one another>

"The ambassador from Canada6 should actually do the math and attempt to discover how little nuclear material - Pu239, for instance - is actually required to create a blast in the range of, say, the equivalent of 100-300 tonnes of TNT."

"As we have stated often, we in Allemande have no nuclear weapons. We do, however, have nuclear explosives, which we employ for many purposes. Some of those purposes require very small, very low yield charges. Small enough that ... well, we'll just say that you'd be quite surprised how small..."

I believe that the resolution should be voted aganst beacause of the restriction of searches of children. That would allow brainwashed or other wise persuaded children to be used as weapons.

*Upon hearing about brainwashed children, the Ambassador from Mikitivity rises to the floor*

Instead of going into a long speech about this subject, I'd like a few minutes of UN floor time to play the following recording ... *he then places an old cassette tape in a dusty tape player and pushes "play"*

We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

Come on guys, I'm honestly surprised a "thought control" resolution hasn't made it to the floor yet. It'd be silly and fun.

Honestly, this one doesn't worry the government of Krioval overly. Should we ever find ourselves in a state of armed conflict, the post-hostility period (assuming we are victorious) will proceed according to our normal policy. We do, in fact, pay individuals for reconstruction, as well as assist in said reconstruction. The resources to cover these costs, of course, come from the occupied nation.

~ Yuri Sokolev, UN Ambassador

Will someone please show me where, within this legislation, the term "child" or "children" is defined? At what age is one no longer considered to be a "child"?

Will someone please show me where, within this legislation, the term "child" or "children" is defined? At what age is one no longer considered to be a "child"?
That'd be up to your nation to decide.

- No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution.

This is an explicit exemption. Our country is new to the UN, so is there somewhere an explicit or implicit authorisation that combatants may be executed?

Alex.

That'd be up to your nation to decide.

To which nation? The conquered or the conquoring nation?

Alex.

As the representative of the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen to the United Nations, I will, on behalf of Galdhøpiggen people, relay our concerns for this Resolution.
They are, in order of appearance in the Resolution, as follows:

The definition of non-combatant is of concern since it allows such parties as the nations leaders and other instigators who may have been involved in the war efforts, but did not "take up arms" to have full protection of this Resolution.

The clause allowing for non-combatants to leave the occupied territories without restriction and with all their positions allows for looters and other criminals to flee to safety, as well as allowing military supplies and arms to be taken into other lands in preparation for resistance to build beyond the boarders of control. The application of a more charitable interpretation of the definition of non-combatant would help classify these arms transports from crossing the boarder, but a simple dismantling of said arms would still allow for their transport. There should be a complete ban on the transport of military grade equipment and components by civilians out of post-war occupied territories.
Another issue with this clause is the unwillingness of any neighboring, or otherwise, nations to allow these refugees into their lands. This puts a burden upon the occupying nation to allow these refugees into the lands of the occupier. I would hope that potential problems that could arise from this are obvious to all.

The Body search restrictions to same sex searches for women clause can be assumed to be already covered by the Dignity clause, but as an additional level of protection it is a noble effort, but the lack of such protection from men being body searched by or in the presence of women is a concern. While the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen has an unsegregated military with equal portions of either sex, and thus would not have any trouble meeting this requirement, other nations with segregated or less equally represented armed forces may not be able to follow this clause without sacrificing protections for the civilians of the occupied territories.

Also, the requirement to rebuild places of Worship and business, as well as the restriction of searching children are a point of concern, but have been well discussed by other delegates so will not be expanded on.


These mentioned concerns are enough to not allow the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen to vote in favour of this well intended Resolution at this time, but since the goals of this Resolution are noble, we will not vote to strike it down either.

As the representative of the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen to the United Nations, I will, on behalf of Galdhøpiggen people, relay our concerns for this Resolution.
They are, in order of appearance in the Resolution, as follows:

The definition of non-combatant is of concern since it allows such parties as the nations leaders and other instigators who may have been involved in the war efforts, but did not "take up arms" to have full protection of this Resolution.

Our esteemed colleague has eloquently summed up the reason why Cabinia stands vehemently opposed to this measure. Where we would otherwise find no issue with a well-intentioned bill protecting civil rights (of which Cabinia has ever been a friend), the definition of "non-combatant" is so restrictive that it allows most of the true war criminals to go free. In fact, this measure seems completely backwards. Soldiers doing their duty for their country in a failed defense are to be respected, and so long as they conduct themselves in combat within the international rules of engagement, should not be persecuted. The true war criminals typically do not take up arms, but issue the orders from behind.

For historical parallel, a measure such as this would have permitted most of the Nazi war criminals to run free. Party officials would be noncombatants. And while concentration camp guards did take up arms, they did not usually turn them against the invading armies, and thus would not have fulfilled the definition of a combatant. The only war criminals that could have been retained for trial would be those responsible for atrocities like the Malmedy Massacre.

There is absolutely no reason why a nations leaders should not be included as "civilians" and protected under this resolution. A nations leader, unless it is ruled by a militaristic dictator who commands the army, is a civillian. Furthermore, national leaders are the first to be evacuated from all areas of fighting. One, because they are a nations leaders, and two, because they are non-combatants. What you are asking for is that an invading army be given the right to execute all members of a defeated nations leadership. That would mean any and all Governers, Diplomats, Mayors, President, Chancellor, Dictator, all members of any advisory council to the nations leader, and any other individuals that work within statehouses as aides to such leaders and staff of such. That would be a blood bath just as bad as the war itself, which most likely could have been avoided in the first place. We can not allow this to happen. Non-combatants are non-combatants, regardless of their political status, and need to be treated as such.

- No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution.

This is an explicit exemption. Our country is new to the UN, so is there somewhere an explicit or implicit authorisation that combatants may be executed?

Alex.


This simply makes it so that no non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution. there is no explicit/implicit authorisation anywhere of execution, this is just saying that there can not be, under any circumstances.

To which nation? The conquered or the conquoring nation?

Alex.
I imagine the conquering nation, as it seems to be the nation that is administering these rights--it decides what their limitations are.

I don't know how this resolution would be enforced though. And aren't some of the rights for non-combatants covered with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that already gives all humans basic rights? The biggest problem though, even with all these nice laws that protect people, is the manner of enforcement. There really is no way to prevent abuses of these laws until after the crimes have been committed, when the people are already dead/raped/jailed/etc. And the part about only female officers supervising searches of women? No offense meant to anyone but there aren't exactly that many females in the military (I think, I don't exactly have the male/female ratios off the top of my head) Just my two cents.

Our esteemed colleague has eloquently summed up the reason why Cabinia stands vehemently opposed to this measure. Where we would otherwise find no issue with a well-intentioned bill protecting civil rights (of which Cabinia has ever been a friend), the definition of "non-combatant" is so restrictive that it allows most of the true war criminals to go free. In fact, this measure seems completely backwards. Soldiers doing their duty for their country in a failed defense are to be respected, and so long as they conduct themselves in combat within the international rules of engagement, should not be persecuted. The true war criminals typically do not take up arms, but issue the orders from behind.

For historical parallel, a measure such as this would have permitted most of the Nazi war criminals to run free. Party officials would be noncombatants. And while concentration camp guards did take up arms, they did not usually turn them against the invading armies, and thus would not have fulfilled the definition of a combatant. The only war criminals that could have been retained for trial would be those responsible for atrocities like the Malmedy Massacre.


- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.

This resolution doesn't protect anyone from arrest. It just prevents an invading army grabbing random people off the street and throwing them in jail for extended periods without charge or trial. Its funny you picked the Nazi's for your example when it was their regimes treatment of rounding up the Jews and throwing them in concentration camps for no reason that was behind this clause in the first place. If Hitler had survived the war I'm sure the allies would have had more than just cause to throw his racist butt in prison, whether he directly fought against them or not.

If a conquered nations leaders are involved in war crimes or if any civilians (including government officials) are involved in any crimes, this doesn't prevent them being arrested and brought to trial. It just means people can't be arrested and thown in prison without charge and trial.

I don't know how this resolution would be enforced though. And aren't some of the rights for non-combatants covered with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that already gives all humans basic rights? The biggest problem though, even with all these nice laws that protect people, is the manner of enforcement. There really is no way to prevent abuses of these laws until after the crimes have been committed, when the people are already dead/raped/jailed/etc. And the part about only female officers supervising searches of women? No offense meant to anyone but there aren't exactly that many females in the military (I think, I don't exactly have the male/female ratios off the top of my head) Just my two cents.

When I did the "search past resolutions to make sure this hasn't been done before" there were several resolutions that dealt with human rights including the one you mentioned. When I read them though they were dealing with how a government treats its own people, not someone elses. The non-combatants of an occupied nation aren't citizens of the invader nation so aren't entitled to any rights or protections the invader nation gives its own people. In the occupied nation scenario the civilian population fell through the cracks. I'm just attempting to give war survivors some protection and rights under a hostile foreign regime.

The resolution states women can only be body searched (patted down or touched) by women soldiers or police. If an invader nation doesn't have any or enough females to do the searching then they will have to use other metholds, like with the children who can't be pysically touched at all.

I don't know how this resolution would be enforced though. And aren't some of the rights for non-combatants covered with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that already gives all humans basic rights? The biggest problem though, even with all these nice laws that protect people, is the manner of enforcement. There really is no way to prevent abuses of these laws until after the crimes have been committed, when the people are already dead/raped/jailed/etc. And the part about only female officers supervising searches of women?

Here are a few of the resolutions that deal with the subject of warfare (taken from the UNA UN Subject Index):

War,
Non Combatants: Required Basic Healthcare (#17), ‘RBH’ Replacement (#20), Ban the Use of Landmines (#40), Children in War (#51), Refugee Protection Act (#65)
Prisoners of War: Wolfish Convention on POW (#31)
Weapons: Elimination of Bio Weapons (#16), Banning the Use of Landmines (#40), Nuclear Armaments (#109), United Nations Security Act (#110)

I think I also missed Sydia's resolution "Children in War" (#51) in the current pdf version, though I've added it here.


As for the subject of female soldiers being searched by females, that actually is fairly common.

The Anticapitalist Alliance has voted in favour of this resolution.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

This resolution doesn't protect anyone from arrest.

Ahem.

"- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation "

Non-combatant war criminals would be permitted to flee the country, and if they are no longer in country, they can't be arrested and charged with a crime.

Ahem.

"- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation "

Non-combatant war criminals would be permitted to flee the country, and if they are no longer in country, they can't be arrested and charged with a crime.

Ahem :D Click Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9223567&postcount=81)

I've just woken up and discovered this resolution has passed. Darn timezones.

I'd like to thank everyone who voted for it.

and also thank those who paticipated in this thread. Whether for or against. It was an interesting debate to say the least :D.

A big thanks to Canada6, Yelda, BloodFever, Mikitivity and the others (sorry I can't remember your names ) who stood up for the resolution and helped me with explainations ect in this thread. I appreciate all your help :).

Congratulations, Waterana.

Ahem.

"- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation "

Non-combatant war criminals would be permitted to flee the country, and if they are no longer in country, they can't be arrested and charged with a crime.

Ahem :D Click Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9223567&postcount=81)

I have taken the liberty to repost the linked remark to make it less cumbersome for people to see what you are "ahem"ing about


There is nothing in this resolution that says you can't question non-combatants before they leave their nation. There is nothing that says you can't question them at any time at all. The only thing you can't do under this is arrest and detain them without just cause. If you have strong reason/evidence to believe they are part of an insurgents group, then you have just cause.

You are within your rights to check the credentials of those fleeing the conquered nation before they cross the border. I didn't say anything against this deliberatly so high ranking army officers, government officials etc involved in war crimes against either the invading nation or their own people couldn't use this to escape arrest.


Now for the passages in question are


- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.


And then


- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.


Note how the cluase protecting the right of the Non-Combatant to leave the conquered nation does not contain the "without just cause" phrase included in many of the cluases of this Resolution. Intend and reality are different and not necessarily equal, and while the intent here is good, the reality of it is that there is an unacceptable loophole.

This causes a flaw in allowing a leader of the conquered nation a get out of jail free card and geting out of being jailed for just cause by calling the trump of leaving the nation. This could easily be solved with an amendment to the Resolution adding in the missing "without just cause" phrase, or by changing the definition of Non-Combatant to not include leaders who have not "taken up arms".

Congratulations, Waterana.

Seconded. :)

Note how the cluase protecting the right of the Non-Combatant to leave the conquered nation does not contain the "without just cause" phrase included in many of the cluases of this Resolution. Intend and reality are different and not necessarily equal, and while the intent here is good, the reality of it is that there is an unacceptable loophole.

This causes a flaw in allowing a leader of the conquered nation a get out of jail free card and geting out of being jailed for just cause by calling the trump of leaving the nation. This could easily be solved with an amendment to the Resolution adding in the missing "without just cause" phrase, or by changing the definition of Non-Combatant to not include leaders who have not "taken up arms".

Now the way you've explained it here is good and I see what the problem is. I agree with you :).

Unfortunetly ammendments are not allowed in the NSUN. The resolution would have to be repealed, rewritten and resubmitted. As you can probably guess, after spending the better part of my free time getting this from an idea to a passed resolution over the last month or so, thats the last thing I want to do right now.

There is an out for the invading nation here, lame though it may be. The invading nation could just count war crimminals etc as combatants, which if they have committed war crimes wouldn't be that much of a stretch, and use the arrest with just cause to bring them to justice. I know the definition I put in states a non-combatant is a civilian who did not "take up arms", but I personally would consider those who were directing and controlling the armed forces as having taken up arms.

I love how debating didn't do jackshit to stop the passing of a resolution, as per usual.

Now the way you've explained it here is good and I see what the problem is. I agree with you :).

Unfortunetly ammendments are not allowed in the NSUN. The resolution would have to be repealed, rewritten and resubmitted. As you can probably guess, after spending the better part of my free time getting this from an idea to a passed resolution over the last month or so, thats the last thing I want to do right now.

For the same reason The Fiefdom of Galhøppigen did not vote against this Resolution, we have no intention at this time to vote for its repeal. We could not in good concience stand in the way of the good that this resolution will enable.

Well done, Waterana. Congratulations!

There is an out for the invading nation here, lame though it may be. The invading nation could just count war crimminals etc as combatants, which if they have committed war crimes wouldn't be that much of a stretch, and use the arrest with just cause to bring them to justice. I know the definition I put in states a non-combatant is a civilian who did not "take up arms", but I personally would consider those who were directing and controlling the armed forces as having taken up arms.FWIW, in Real Life™ any civilian in the military chain of command is considered a "combatant". To be sure, this definition is intended for use in determining whether "sanctioning" said civilian official constitutes "assassination" or a "legitimate military operation" (a/k/a a "decapitation strike"), but that same definition may hold here. So if the Head of State and Defence Minister are both in the military chain of command, you could detain them. Unfortunately, using the example of Nazi Germany, that would mean that you could arrest Hitler, Göring, and Himmler, but not, say Speer, Göbbels, et al.