NationStates Jolt Archive

In the resolution, "Wolfish Convention on POW," which I think is #31, if I get my forum post count correct, I question one of the articles.

Article 8

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

It seems to me that this is going a little overboard. I thought one of the main reasons a country captures POW's is to get information.

Can someone help me understand this better.

Thank you.

Actually, HotRodia captures folks because we like to have a diverse assortment of drinking buddies and navigators, not to extract information from them.

Information would be voluntary. I'm sure most countries would be offering deals. Better treatment and quicker release for information provided.

Most grunt soldiers of most armies don't have any information, however. The officers are the ones who have the info, and I think the aforementioned clause is written under the assumption that most POWs are grunt soldiers, and it is meant to protect people who honestly don't know anything from being tortured.

By the way, is there a big movement to get this repealed? I hear it referenced often, I just can't remember whether it was in a good, indifferent, or bad way.

By the way, is there a big movement to get this repealed? I hear it referenced often, I just can't remember whether it was in a good, indifferent, or bad way.

Many people see it as the first truly high-quality resolution, including me.

And a repeal of it is...rather unlikely, regardless of the fact that I would like to see it repealed for my own reasons.

In the resolution, "Wolfish Convention on POW," which I think is #31, if I get my forum post count correct, I question one of the articles.
It seems to me that this is going a little overboard. I thought one of the main reasons a country captures POW's is to get information.
Can someone help me understand this better.
Thank you.

Those captured for the purpose of extracting information are not POWs they are enemy detainees.

POWs are troops or civilians of the enemy nation that fall under the control of your nation during the course of a battle in which you are trying to take an area that they occupy it. They are also those recovered from aircraft, ships, or others machines stopped by your troops and disabled. They may also be taken while trying to take control of lands held by your forces.

Enemy detainees (EDs) are those which are considered special rated persons who you send in special forces to take just for the purpose of getting information from them. Thus they are not included under this as POWs as you go get them for what they know not that they happen to be in an area you want to take..

OOC: In otherwords the resolution has no definition of what is a POW in it so this leaves it up to each nation to determine who are and who are not POWs. Thus if POWs are only those taken during an actual battle or formal open militaty operation between the two nations then those taken in covert operations are EDs.. and not POWs. Also you would not want information on EDs getting out to your enemy thus letting them know who you have and what you might know.. However under the resolution believe you have to let folks know who you have as POWs. So POWs are those everyone knows you have and EDs are those you don't have...

We capture people who use ugly coloured text.

Basicaly all that quote means is don't torture a person to get information. There is nothing at all wrong with that. It is in good grammer and formatting and does not have anything wrong with it at all from what I see.(I never read the full Proposal but I am sure it is good)

We capture people who use ugly coloured text.

We ugly colored text-users are proud people! :p

Basicaly all that quote means is don't torture a person to get information. There is nothing at all wrong with that. It is in good grammer and formatting and does not have anything wrong with it at all from what I see.(I never read the full Proposal but I am sure it is good)

It's a Resolution, not a proposal, and admitting that you've never read something but think it's good is... Just... Unkosher. The reason why a lot of bad Resolutions are on the books is because people assume good things before reading it.

OOC: Norderia, I agree. I actually just had the opposite thing happen. I generally think of most of the early resolutions as pretty poor, but I just reread "Global AIDS Initiative", and damn I'd have voted for that in a heartbeat (not saying it's perfect, just straightforward and good). I'd always assumed it was a bad 'un.

IC: Gruenberg's position on Wolfish is: we believe it suitable for international legislation, and are not adamantly opposed to it. As to Article 8...whilst we do comply with this, we cannot be held accountable for the actions of individual operatives, and will take every step to investigate and prosecute any accused of torture.