NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Wolfish Convention on POW"
DEFINING that prisoners of war are members of the armed forces of another party to the conflict, volunteer corps, and any Civilian who has a non-combatant role in the military;

NOTING Article V of Resolution #26, “The Universal Bill of Rights,” which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.";

Article 1 -- Any individual Combatant or non-combatant in signatory's territory during an armed conflict, shall be treated humanely.

Article 2 -- Prisoners of war are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation.

ENCOURAGES all N.S.U.N. members to severely punish any violators of Article 1 and 2, by such means as they see fit.

I tried hard on this.

Get rid of "regardless of any circumstances" and you have my vote.

Get rid of "regardless of any circumstances" and you have my vote.

Ok, how is it now

CONSIDERING that prisoners of war are not covered by any N.S.U.N. resolution;What about the Wolfish Convention on POWs?

What about the Wolfish Convention on POWs?

Darn.. I can make this a repeal then. I don't agree with what is stated there.

Have you seen a thing called the Wolfish Convention on POW (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32)? Might want to take a look at it.
Yes, let me change the format into a repeal then.

Have you seen a thing called the Wolfish Convention on POW (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32)? Might want to take a look at it.

That's not a Repeal. That's attempting to just ram in different legislation under the title of a Repeal.

Furthermore, why do you disagree with Wolfish? Its fifth clause seems to do everything you want to do.

Article 1 -- Any individual Combatant or non-combatant in signatory's territory during an armed conflict, shall be treated humanely.

Article 2 -- Prisoners of war are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation.

ENCOURAGES all N.S.U.N. members to severely punish any violators of Article 1 and 2, by such means as they see fit.

With this being a repeal now, you'll need to remove this part. Repeals can't contain new legislation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Furthermore, why do you disagree with Wolfish? Its fifth clause seems to do everything you want to do.Probably just because it's not his resolution.

Probably just because it's not his resolution.

Or because it touches the role play aspect to much. :upyours:

Or because it touches the role play aspect to much. :upyours:

And what's wrong with that? In case you haven't figured this out, the bulk of a resolution is nothing but flavor text. In fact, the only thing the game looks at is the category and strength.

And what's wrong with that? In case you haven't figured this out, the bulk of a resolution is nothing but flavor text. In fact, the only thing the game looks at is the category and strength.

Human rights
Strong

All jews must die!



PASS!!

Probably just because it's not his resolution.

My thoughts exactly... We decline to support this repeal.

Human rights
Strong

All jews must die!



PASS!!

As far as the game's concerned, that would be perfectly legitimate. The mods, however, would disagree. That proposal is grossly offensive, and is not "Human Rights."

As far as the game's concerned, that would be perfectly legitimate. The mods, however, would disagree. That proposal is grossly offensive, and is not "Human Rights."

I know, I was making a hole in that guys logic when he said "In fact, the only thing the game looks at is the category and strength."

Or because it touches the role play aspect to much. :upyours:

OOC:
I wouldn't use the smiley's in IC messages. It's bad form.

I know, I was making a hole in that guys logic when he said "In fact, the only thing the game looks at is the category and strength."

I know that's what you were trying to do, and you failed miserably. First off pay attention, I am the guy who said that. And all the game (i.e. the website) looks at when a resolution passes is what the category and strength is. It then adjusts all UN member nation's stats accordingly. Your "Kill all Jews" Category: Human Rights example fails in that the Game Moderators would delete any such proposal long before it come up for vote.

And probably eject you from the UN while we were at it.

The Temporary Delegate for Evoinia enters the hall, prepared for debate.
He quickly reads over the legislation then sighs.
"Another one...?"

He then reads the minutes from the debating of the past few days and makes a second sigh. "Well, it seems there isn't much to be done here but make my statement..."

He coughs. "Evoinia is against this legislation... As it is weak, hole-filled and... oh why even bother, everything that needs to have been said has. I'm off to the bar."

And with that... He leaves.

The Temporary Delegate for Evoinia enters the hall, prepared for debate.
He quickly reads over the legislation then sighs.
"Another one...?"

He then reads the minutes from the debating of the past few days and makes a second sigh. "Well, it seems there isn't much to be done here but make my statement..."

He coughs. "Evoinia is against this legislation... As it is weak, hole-filled and... oh why even bother, everything that needs to have been said has. I'm off to the bar."

And with that... He leaves.


......
You CAN'T be serious.

The door to the halls swing open.
"Bloody well right I'm serious." said the Delegate, seriously.

"I mean... this has the same number of problems as it did when my predecessor and all these other fine delegates did mention them. So as I said, I'm off to the bar. Anyone else comming? no? Eh, suit yourselves."

And with that... he leaves again.

- Temporary Delegate Bob of the Evoinian Soviet, Provisional Government-in-Exile.

The door to the halls swing open.
"Bloody well right I'm serious." said the Delegate, seriously.

"I mean... this has the same number of problems as it did when my predecessor and all these other fine delegates did mention them. So as I said, I'm off to the bar. Anyone else comming? no? Eh, suit yourselves."

And with that... he leaves again.

- Temporary Delegate Bob of the Evoinian Soviet, Provisional Government-in-Exile.

Runs away and trips right in front of a train. "OMG IZ GON GET PW3N3D!!!!" .
Just then my logic came back and figured out that RP is stupid.

Runs away and trips right in front of a train. "OMG IZ GON GET PW3N3D!!!!" .
Just then my logic came back and figured out that RP is stupid.

OOC:
And that could be considered flamebait, or trolling.

The door to the halls swing open.
"Bloody well right I'm serious." said the Delegate, seriously.

"I mean... this has the same number of problems as it did when my predecessor and all these other fine delegates did mention them. So as I said, I'm off to the bar. Anyone else comming? no? Eh, suit yourselves."

And with that... he leaves again.

- Temporary Delegate Bob of the Evoinian Soviet, Provisional Government-in-Exile.

An aide is rushing in looking for the delegate, "If you see him, send him over to the UN stranger bar"

Runs away and trips right in front of a train. "OMG IZ GON GET PW3N3D!!!!" .
Just then my logic came back and figured out that RP is stupid.

OOC: If you had logic, would you be flooding the boards with redundant, holefilled and nearly useless pieces of legislation? I think not.

But, hey... I could be wrong. In any case, I applaud you for attempting to make this 'world' better but would think that making comments like that would be:

1) Rude: Flamebaiting it is and yes, I kinda took the bait but thats moot, as I'm trying to make a point.

2) Foolish: As your RPing everytime you submit legislation and debate it, each person here is RPing as their nation's delegate.

3) Childish: Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean you have to flame or flamebait.

So, thats all I've got.

OOC: If you had logic, would you be flooding the boards with redundant, holefilled and nearly useless pieces of legislation? I think not.

But, hey... I could be wrong. In any case, I applaud you for attempting to make this 'world' better but would think that making comments like that would be:

1) Rude: Flamebaiting it is and yes, I kinda took the bait but thats moot, as I'm trying to make a point.

2) Foolish: As your RPing everytime you submit legislation and debate it, each person here is RPing as their nation's delegate.

3) Childish: Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean you have to flame or flamebait.

So, thats all I've got.

You're right, I am sowwy.

The Wolfish Emissary wakes up from her long nap.

"What's this then?"

-Someone is trying to repeal your Convention on POW madam.

"Hmmm."

*Stands up*

"It has been 1534 days since the passage of the Wolfish Convention on Prisoners of War...1534 days that have been marked by a 100 percent reduction in torture...in mistreatment...wrongful imprisonment of service men and women in all NSUN member nations. 1534 days where aid convoys have been able to pass through war zones without undue risk of harm.

I expected that sooner or later some educated member would rise in this Hall - this Chamber of debate - and elegantly put forward a case to repeal this groundbreaking piece of legislation.

And I always promised myself that I would hear that debate...that I would, in fact, encourage that debate...for I don't believe that any piece of legislation is timeless - I do believe that this honourable gathering of the enlightened has done tremendous work in building this great institution and ensuring that the laws we pass are right and just...and that those laws, whether due to the passage of time, or the changing of circumstance have grown stale are removed and revised, for the betterment of all.

I am disappointed that this one delegate has offered nothing to further the debate...has offered no way to better protect the innocent.

It saddens me that this seems to be the best he can do.

I'll be napping here if anyone needs me."

My government is happy to participate in polls and actually appreciates the fact that this proposal was brought to this body as a poll (with non-leading questions) as a means to gauge support for the proposed repeal.

However, I would like to stress that my government firmly supports the existing Wolfish Convention on POW and would not likely support any repeal of that particular resolution. We feel that its point is clear, and historically the resolution has provided the international community strong grounds for protecting the rights of POWs as well as establishing that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to wage war.

Howie T. Katzman

Personally, given Ackmanistan's outlook on things, I would borrow from the past. Keep the available legislation as it stands, but add a codicil:

Any prisoner of war may be given the option to parole; that is, to give his word to be released on the strict condition that he does not undertake any further warlike activity against the nation that captured him. Said person to be conveyed as close to freedom as reasonably expectable from his captors, and released with all of his personal belongings. (This takes the burden of his upkeep from his captors and places it back where it belongs).

His home nation is likewise expected to honor said parole, and not force him into a situation whereby he has to violate it.

If he does return and is actively seen to be breaking his parole, then he is to be summarily tried as a war criminal, and executed at the first available opportunity.

But that's just the way we think over here in Ackmanistan. :D

(Of course, I can't propose this until someone Endorses me ... meh.)

Personally, given Ackmanistan's outlook on things, I would borrow from the past. Keep the available legislation as it stands, but add a codicil:

Any prisoner of war may be given the option to parole; that is, to give his word to be released on the strict condition that he does not undertake any further warlike activity against the nation that captured him. Said person to be conveyed as close to freedom as reasonably expectable from his captors, and released with all of his personal belongings. (This takes the burden of his upkeep from his captors and places it back where it belongs).

His home nation is likewise expected to honor said parole, and not force him into a situation whereby he has to violate it.

If he does return and is actively seen to be breaking his parole, then he is to be summarily tried as a war criminal, and executed at the first available opportunity.

But that's just the way we think over here in Ackmanistan. :D

(Of course, I can't propose this until someone Endorses me ... meh.)

I appreciate the out-of-the-box approach offered here, but I just don't think this would work. Part of interning a POW is actually for his/her protection. For example, if there was a remote risk of a soldier returning home, only to continue the fight, then the logical choice most combatants would turn to would be to maim or kill the soldier -- neither is really something my government would like to see nor encourage.

Just because a soldier might offer his/her word to not engage in further hostilities, his/her family, friends, and government could just as easily pressure him or her to return *or* utilize them to train other soldiers or manufacture arms.

If we wanted to really conduct clean wars and remove POWs from the equation, we could have a UN resolution to build giant war computers, which could simulate attacks on nations. After an attack, causalities could be required to report to disintegration booths. We wouldn't have to worry about POWs, parole, or even mother-in-laws. Yes, this should work out fine.

Personally, given Ackmanistan's outlook on things, I would borrow from the past. Keep the available legislation as it stands, but add a codicil ... <SNIP> ...(Of course, I can't propose this until someone Endorses me ... meh.)

You couldn't propose it even if somebody did endorse you. The NS UN doesn't do codicils or amendments, just resolutions and repeals. To change or add anything, first the UN has to repeal the old resolution, then it has to pass a new one.

If we wanted to really conduct clean wars and remove POWs from the equation, we could have a UN resolution to build giant war computers, which could simulate attacks on nations. After an attack, causalities could be required to report to disintegration booths. We wouldn't have to worry about POWs, parole, or even mother-in-laws. Yes, this should work out fine.

OOC-->sounds like an old star trek episode...

OOC-->sounds like an old star trek episode...

Ah, but the real question is would this solve the POW problem?
http://www.voyager.cz/rasy/images/eminiar.jpg

I like Mikitivity's proposals.

I think there should be a new method of fighting war that will avoid civilian casualities and basically resolve disputes. This could go a long way to making warfare less deveasting to civilian populations.

Unless it goes against the UN Character (OOC: the mods think of it as too silly), I would vouch for Mikitivity idea on one condition: The only people that can be sent to disintegration booths are those who are part of the military. No civilians harmed at all.

We are appalled at this passivity! We are a warrior culture. We have no division between civilian and military. If we are to fight, lets do it with honor. We are not sheep to be led to the slaughterhouse because a MACHINE?!? tells us to?

We are off to the bar to grab a drink of Madeiras.... or a double Bourbon! Anyone to join me?

We are appalled at this passivity! We are a warrior culture. We have no division between civilian and military. If we are to fight, lets do it with honor. We are not sheep to be led to the slaughterhouse because a MACHINE?!? tells us to?

We are off to the bar to grab a drink of Madeiras.... or a double Bourbon! Anyone to join me?

Let's not forget that soldiers themselves are machines too, just of an organic nature. The beauty of having gigantic war computers statistically generating battle equivalent casualties is that nations would be able to sustain warfare for a much longer time ... the cultural heritage would remain intact.

In the case of a society that has no division between civilians and military, surely the gigantic war computers would treat those societies as having significantly more resources to use in warfare.

When warrior-citizens were told to report, the suicide booths could be turned into some sort of gladiator show and another set of brains in glass jars could even wager on how long each gladiator might last.

Example of a gladiator show in which a new POW fights a gladiator:
http://videos.tvguide.liveworld.com/xcode/thumbnails/TVG/01/97/16/800169701-0000.png

OOC: Oh great, Bread and Circuses and Futurama, we're getting our fill of Sci-Fi today.

IC: This is already addressed, and better. I see no reason to modify it.

Let's not forget that soldiers themselves are machines too, just of an organic nature. The beauty of having gigantic war computers statistically generating battle equivalent casualties is that nations would be able to sustain warfare for a much longer time ... the cultural heritage would remain intact.

In the case of a society that has no division between civilians and military, surely the gigantic war computers would treat those societies as having significantly more resources to use in warfare.

When warrior-citizens were told to report, the suicide booths could be turned into some sort of gladiator show and another set of brains in glass jars could even wager on how long each gladiator might last.

Example of a gladiator show in which a new POW fights a gladiator:
http://videos.tvguide.liveworld.com/xcode/thumbnails/TVG/01/97/16/800169701-0000.png

Hic, we's don'ts needs a computers to's tells us whens to's fights ins glad... gladi... those rings fights.... We's no's trust machines that's cant's even's get drunk... !!!... !... hic?