NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: REALISING that conflict is ongoing & unavoidable

BELIEVING that personnel of an enemy’s armed forces captured during hostilities should be treated with respect and not be subject to human rights violations

DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation

DEFINES a "civilian internee" as a civilian national of a belligerent nation present and held in an opposing belligerent nation at the outbreak of hostilities against whom no reasonable suspicion of espionage, sabotage, subversion or other criminal charges exists. The right to intern or not such persons remains the privilege of the nation in question

DEFINES a "military internee" as a member of a belligerent armed force of either hostile powers found present and held in a neutral or non-belligerent nation. This excludes escaped PoWs who have made their way to non-belligerent nations

MANDATES that all PoWs and civilian and military internees, be they held in camps or otherwise, are to be supplied, free of charge, with the following, without unreasonable discrimination:
a) Shelter, fully nutritional food, washing facilities, water, & competent medical attention
b) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW
c) Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired;
d) Protection against intimidation, humiliation, insults & physical attack
e) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.

PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion, medical procedures not required to ensure such person's health, killed (including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered), and other such violations of human rights
a) Force may be used only in cases where the person in question is resisting apprehension, following reasonable warnings that such force is to be used. Detaining nation's forces are further permitted to search and remove any weapons and other contraband
b) PoWs may be questioned to establish their name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commissioning), and pertinent medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by PoWs
c) Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force. Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims. Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour. Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent

PERMITS nations to engage in repatriation of civilian internees, PoW exchanges, or conditional repatriation of either
a) Civilian and military internees may be left at liberty, military internees under the condition that they do not attempt to leave the country in which they are currently present
b) Escaped PoWs of any belligerent force who make their way to a non belligerent nation are to repatriated

Any thoughts

Any thoughs
I commend the Cobdenian delegation for bringing this important international matter to the fore.

For now, I have found some grammatical and other minor errors:

BELIEVING that personel of an enemies armed forces captured during hostilities should be treated with respect and not be subject to human rights violations,
Should be 'personnel'.

I am not sure about the possessive form of enemies. Perhaps an English grammarian will chime in but I believe an apostrophe belongs in there somewhere.


DEFINES a "Prisoner of War" as a member of a belligerent armed force, found in uniform or with other distinguishing insignia or identification, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation
But what if the individual has somehow shed (or lost) all of his uniform and identification but there is reason to believe he a member of a belligerent armed force?

Also, this clause is missing a comma at the end.

DEFINES an "civilian internee" as a civilian national, subject or citizen of a belligerent nation residing or otherwise present in an opposing and held in a belligerent nation at the outbreak of hostilities against whom no reasonable suspicion of espionage, saboutage, subversion or other criminal charges exists. The right to intern or not such person remains the privaledge of the nation in question.

Should be 'a', not 'an'.

The 'present in an opposing and held in a belligerent' part is unclear. What were you meaning here?

privilege

MANDATES that all prisoners of war and civilian and military internees, be they held in camps or otherwise, are to be supplied, free of charge, with the following, without reasonable discrimination:
Did you mean 'unreasonable'?


2) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of prisoners of war, such uniform is to reasonably resembled the uniform, complete with relevent insignia, he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a prisoner of war;
resemble

relevant.
3) Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives and friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondance if desired;
correspondence
4) Protection against intimidation, humilitation, insults and physical attack;
humiliation
5) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.
deem

PROHIBITS prisoners of war and civilian and military internees from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, mutilation, assasination, killed and other such violations of human rights.
assassination

B) Prohibits interrogation of prisoners of war except to establish the prisoner of war's name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commisioning), blood type and other pertainant medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by prisoners of war.

commissioning

I will continue to monitor this drafting process and will speak up at once if anything further occurs to me. Best of luck with this.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security


(OOC: I apologize if any of those are British spellings that I mistook for mis-spellings)

I think it is a very good bill which I would support, were it not for the following:

B) Prohibits interrogation of prisoners of war except to establish the prisoner of war's name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commisioning), blood type and other pertainant medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by prisoners of war.

Let's say Desh-Shrik is at war with Country X. We mount a special operation to capture the enemy commander who's whereabouts are known to us. The special forces go in, do their job, and are airlifted out of there with one prisoner more than they came with.

We want to know our enemy's strategy, positions, amounts, everything. And we have their commander. We should be able to interrogate him for military secrets and all that, while of course staying within human rights of not physically or mentally attempting to harm him.

Should this piece of fine print be changed, we would support the bill.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 8:22

I am not sure about the possessive form of enemies. Perhaps an English grammarian will chime in but I believe an apostrophe belongs in there somewhere.


Fortunately, an English grammarian is not required for this one. The possessive form of enemy is enemy's. The plural possessive form would be enemies'. In this instance only one enemy is being referred to, therefore, enemy's would be correct.

I always loved to sit behind a couch, and be as rich as Dagobert Duck. I hope that was the thing asked (being non native speaker).
Now a suggestion to this lovely proposal:
I think the rations given to POW should be the same as given to the nations own soldiers, would be fair, isn't it? Otherwise a nation can give some but not enough.

Regards

On a side note, the wealthy duck you're referring to is called Scrooge McDuck in English, not Dagobert Duck, as in Dutch. Also, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you brought him up.

I don't quite agree with you on your suggestion, Wierd Anarchists. Generals are often fed better than the common soldier, yes? So if we were to capture a high-ranking enemy general, would we give him his own little banquet? I think the nation's tax revenues could be better spent elsewhere.

Giving them enough food for them to survive in normal health seems good enough for them to me, as you would with normal prisoners. We're still dealing with prisoners here, not esteemed guests.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 17:09

Well im not going to lecture or give my complete list of things dealing 'Honorable COmbat' but I do believe in treating SOLDIERS/GRUNTS(anything lower the a General) with respect and upmost dignity since they are fighters/warriors and deserve to be treated with respect cause of that. I see fitting that Grunts be treated a bit more better then officers seeing as the Grunts have to put their lives on the line more but a General is a General and has had lots of time fighting to get there. Now I would say on rations that they be given decent meals and if they haven't had anything to eat because of their countries supplies when they are captured then a small banquet would be appropriate would it not for fellow soldiers?

I've made some updates: sorted out the spelling and grammar, added a final subclause, diddled with the penultimate subclause, and probably another couple of things!

Now the the bill doesn't say that we can't question them for military things, which means that we can. That works for me.

I'm not too sure about the new final subclause, though. Even if you they can not be used for manual labour, the clause could probably still be exploited in one way or another.

On a note to the ambassor from Heilsland: We certainly believe in honourable combat, but when we capture an enemy general you can harldy expect us to break out the champagne and caviar.

All of our POW's get soup, meat, vegetables, and everything else they need, even a tasty extra now and then. We're treating them with respect, we're just not spoiling them. Hell, some POW's get better food than our own soldiers do at the front, when the supply lines come short.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 19:53

AS A soldier myself I can say that any soldier taken under arms is to be disarmed and taken to a place designated to hold them but to tke complete care and treat them just as you anyone else and Generals should be treated like important Guests because they are.

And if you soldiers lack the food they need becuase of your supplies you might have wanted to plan out your logistics properly.

And if you really believe in Honorable combat then you know that there is no such a thing as a POW, just the living and the dead.

I've a couple of minor alterations; I'm not entirely sure what HeilsLand is asking me to do. There is nothing in the resolution that prevents from giving generals lavish four course meals, four poster beds, opium, saunas, and the services of unmarried Thesadorian women, but I can't exactly list various treatments that differing ranks should recieve due to the word limit. This is only the minimum requirements.

Im not asking for anything, I just say that Generals should be treated with a heir of dignified treatment and somewhat likewise for Grunts. either way it does not matter, If they would rather be dead then be captured then my soldiers are to oblige them

On a side note, the wealthy duck you're referring to is called Scrooge McDuck in English, not Dagobert Duck, as in Dutch. Also, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you brought him up.

I don't quite agree with you on your suggestion, Wierd Anarchists. Generals are often fed better than the common soldier, yes? So if we were to capture a high-ranking enemy general, would we give him his own little banquet? I think the nation's tax revenues could be better spent elsewhere.

Giving them enough food for them to survive in normal health seems good enough for them to me, as you would with normal prisoners. We're still dealing with prisoners here, not esteemed guests.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 17:09

I thank the for his remarks. I really do not want to be Scrooge McDuck. If I am rich I will invest my money in a better world. I came forward with Dagobert Duck, because that is the duck I know and I felt it was connected with: "I shall duck behind that couch" poll answer 1. But I apologize if it wasn't. In that case the mods are free to delete my vote in the poll.

Now about the rations. I fully agree that a general as a POW doesn't need the same as a general of the nation who hold these POW's. But I cannot agree that these POW's will get the same rations as normal prisoners. I know that in many nations prisoners doesn't get food at all, that family or friends are needed for a supply of food. Would there be a WA resolution that prisoners are getting enough food, than it would be fine, but that is not the case at the moment.

So I really want that the rations are at the level of the normal ration of a normal soldier (not officer level, although in my nation that is the mostly the same (although some soldiers get much more rations because they are having a harder time in the army than the general behind his desk)).

Regards

They are guaranteed nutrition by the resolution, I think that's enough. Going into "how much food" and "what sort of food" and "what sort of shelter" and "how much water they can wash with" would mean a 10,000 word resolution; one can only really deal generally

When I said ''like normal prisoners'' I meant our normal prisoners, and those are taken care of rather well. Around and possibly above the level of most normal soldiers.

Enemy generals would be treated with importance, but we wouldn't cater to their every wish and command. And Heilsland may have different definitions of honourable combat.

Oh, and all the logistics planning in the world won't save you from an enemy that's smarter than you. We've blown up bridges to cut off enemies, and they could do the same to us if we're not careful. A force being surrounded and cut off is quite rare.

And to Cobdenia: Yes, that is true. I can't see any more flaws in the resolution.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 23:12

Logistics can save you from an opponent smarter then yourselve, proven countless times. We may have different DEGREES on honorable combat, mine may considered radical(not in a bad psychotic way). And noone said anything about catering to their whims, mind you, I just said they should be given an heir of dignity especially since history shows that plenty of times Generals would be paraded undignified like animals for being an enemy.

And you can blow up bridges but this is the 21st century not the 1st century where roads where the only way of supply and leningrad they got supplies through by traveling over the frozen rivers where the German sieges had gaps.

This is of no relevence...

No not real, I was just giving my answer/opinion to his statements.

I see no issues with this legislation. You will have our support.

Wens Foroun
Symposium Subjugant

I believe that the nation is spelled "Thessadoria", with a double "S" - just in case it makes it into the final draft. Also, I support this proposal.

I assume you mean this to be Human Rights?

Also, poor Chechnya... your days as a meme are drawing to an end. :(

Yes, HR Mild

New clause added

Well old bean, it looks like once again you are trying to become the master of all things boaty and POWish, just like in the old UN.:D Looks reasonable enough to me, so I think the Palentine will give its tentative support.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Is it wrong that I read the title as Prisoners of War and Intentines?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

*sigh* if this gets into law ime going to have to reclassify all my P.O.W's as illegal enemy combatants.
now ile need somewhere to put them all hmmmmm perhaps some kind of bay.....

You can't under section 1; a PoW is clearly defined, and a definition is binding

Logistics can save you from an opponent smarter then yourselve, proven countless times. We may have different DEGREES on honorable combat, mine may considered radical(not in a bad psychotic way). And noone said anything about catering to their whims, mind you, I just said they should be given an heir of dignity especially since history shows that plenty of times Generals would be paraded undignified like animals for being an enemy.

And you can blow up bridges but this is the 21st century not the 1st century where roads where the only way of supply and leningrad they got supplies through by traveling over the frozen rivers where the German sieges had gaps.

Imagine this: You're moving across a river delta, and on the other side are the enemy lines. You have complete control over the delta. You move over one branch of the river, and are now between rivers. Boom. The enemy has blown up the bridges in front and behind you with a special forces team.

Now they open an offensive on another side of the line, punch through, and surround you. If they get air superiority then you can not send food. Being cut off is a rare occurance, but always a possibility when in treacherous terrain.

And on that note, not all rivers freeze over in winter and not all sieges have gaps. But we're straying from the subject here, so let's not continue in the discussion of ''my nation's military is better than your nation's military''.

Because everyone knows the Honour Guard could wipe the floor with any of *your* regiments...

-High Council Member M. Stuart
12th of August, 14:18

well in that case i shall simply order all of my armed forces to refuse any offers of surrender and annihilate any enemy force that attempts to surrender

Section five

(BTW this is a joke, I wouldn't get THAT mad at a dumb *crap* post like that)

HeilsLand, please refrain from posting "In-Character" obnoxiousness until you've got a much better grasp on what is appropriate for your WA Ambassador to say in this forum. You went way over the line with that one, even IC.

section five only applies once they have become prisoners or detainees if i refuse to accept their surrender then they are not my captives and i am free to slaughter them as i will ;)

The ambassador from Desh-Shrik loudly goes *ahem* and hands the ambassador from Axmanland a copy of the bill with one sentence highlighted with a bright yellow marker.

including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered

well in that case Axmanland shall take a VERY stern view on what counts as "found in uniform" to qualify as a P.O.W rather than a combatant or spy.

in order to be considered "found in uniform" the detainee must have 100% of the kit listed as standard issue to his troop type (including a FULL compliment of ammunition :) ) said uniform must also be TOTALLY undamaged and be clean and freshly laundered.

any combatant detained and found to be "out of uniform" will be considered a spy or illegal combatant.

They don't need to be in full uniform:
found in uniform (full or partial) or with other distinguishing insignia or identification, or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force

Stop looking for loopholes, there ain't any

well in that case Axmanland shall take a VERY stern view on what counts as "found in uniform" to qualify as a P.O.W rather than a combatant or spy.

in order to be considered "found in uniform" the detainee must have 100% of the kit listed as standard issue to his troop type (including a FULL compliment of ammunition :) ) said uniform must also be TOTALLY undamaged and be clean and freshly laundered.

any combatant detained and found to be "out of uniform" will be considered a spy or illegal combatant.

Indeed the honoured ambassador for Cobdenia is correct, thorough reading of this resolution would perhaps assist the respected ambassador for Axmanland in properly understanding how well written this resolution is. Perhaps each phrase viewed in isolation might contain ommitions and lacunae, but the sum of all the phrases of the entirety of this resolution ammount to a very comprehensive and fairly water tight statutory basis for the treatment of POWs.

yours e.t.c. ,

(ooc)

yeah youve got me so far lol but to be fair ive only had 5-10 minuet sessions on the computer so tonight when ive got more time ile give it a proper reading

ime sure ile find some way of mistreating my prisoners :) if you pick any legislation over enough and intentionaly "interpret" the meaning of enough words thier are very few documents you cant pervert in the end

by the way i can usually "adapt" most legislation into an Axmanland friendly version in a very short space of time so this one stands out as particularly well put together grats :p

(ooc)

yeah youve got me so far lol but to be fair ive only had 5-10 minuet sessions on the computer so tonight when ive got more time ile give it a proper reading

ime sure ile find some way of mistreating my prisoners :) if you pick any legislation over enough and intentionaly "interpret" the meaning of enough words thier are very few documents you cant pervert in the end

by the way i can usually "adapt" most legislation into an Axmanland friendly version in a very short space of time so this one stands out as particularly well put together grats :p

The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla is sitting at his desk listening to this exchange. He gets a rather disgusted look on his face, and turns around to a small table that is stacked with many custard pies. Picking one up he turns and throws it at the delegate from Axemanland, hitting said delegate square in the kisser.

"Begone to your cave, troll! I've plenty more pies!", Sulla says.

ooc:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/shirow/dogbert.gif

section five only applies once they have become prisoners or detainees if i refuse to accept their surrender then they are not my captives and i am free to slaughter them as i will ;)

Such policies only encourage the nation whose soldiers you've just brutalized to do the exact same thing to your soldiers, should your soldiers become POWs. Smart move, that. :p

The Federation will support this measure.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

HeilsLand, please refrain from posting "In-Character" obnoxiousness until you've got a much better grasp on what is appropriate for your WA Ambassador to say in this forum. You went way over the line with that one, even IC.
Over the line is a point of view really, and any normal human would be a bit pissed at someone being a dick then posting some childish thing(I.E ''Let's not start a my country is better then yours fight'', ''and BTW my regiment would beat yours easily) and if thats a joke it is a retarded one at that. Oh and to be cut off on a bridge means your by yourself and you gotta be a big idiot for that to happen, especially in a war zone then SFs would blow the center as the bridges main supports are in the center. And you would have to be dumb for letting them do that all in the first place....


ANd technically you have to accept someone's surrender if you agree to this, and even if they don't it to you I'd expect you rub defeat in their face by being dignified and civilized and take their soldiers prisoner...

Over the line is a point of view really...

Perhaps, but I'm a NationStates Senior Game Moderator. In cases where forum rules are being discussed, my POV wins every time.

It's quite possible to play at being pissed without resorting to coarse and offensive personal abuse. I suggest you consider your phrasing more carefully next time.

Over the line is a point of view really, and any normal human would be a bit pissed at someone being a dick then posting some childish thing(I.E ''Let's not start a my country is better then yours fight'', ''and BTW my regiment would beat yours easily) and if thats a joke it is a retarded one at that. Oh and to be cut off on a bridge means your by yourself and you gotta be a big idiot for that to happen, especially in a war zone then SFs would blow the center as the bridges main supports are in the center. And you would have to be dumb for letting them do that all in the first place.....

I don't think I was ''being a dick'' before I made my joke. I had the feeling we were having a civilised yet competetive exchange of views.

It should also be noted that the joke was made for the amusement of the joker, not for the amusent of the jokee or of the byst, anandersd that wether it was ''retarded'' or childish wasn't relevant. Had you taken it calmly, you would -as I rather expected of you, actually- have said ''Very clever, but we'll see about that some time.'' And then continued on with more relevant matter of State, leaving the discussion behind us both.

And on the overstretched ''Your military is stupid'' debate, when in artillery range bridges can be easily destroyed (as we once gleefully demonstrated in the Revolutionary War) and there is also the fact that a bit of money and a few men on the inside can arrange for a bridge to be less guarded. It was an example, anyway, and the point was supposed to be ''Forces get cut off sometimes'' which I hope you understand is a fact. And to backtrack all the way to the root of this debate: Prisoners of war get good food, period.

Oh, and on what is perhaps the only sentence relevant to the topic we're intruding on: We'd support the bill in it's current state.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
13th of August, 23:01

(ooc)

yeah youve got me so far lol but to be fair ive only had 5-10 minuet sessions on the computer so tonight when ive got more time ile give it a proper reading

ime sure ile find some way of mistreating my prisoners :) if you pick any legislation over enough and intentionaly "interpret" the meaning of enough words thier are very few documents you cant pervert in the end

by the way i can usually "adapt" most legislation into an Axmanland friendly version in a very short space of time so this one stands out as particularly well put together grats :p

OOC: Maybe instead of coming up with ridiculous loopholes and exploits, you should give advice on how to better improve it?

also, punctuation and grammar and your friends.

Bump for submission; shortened marginally, without removing any real content.

Proposal Link (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=war)

Five approvals needed; come on chaps!

It's the Happy Happy Happy, Quorum Song!
The Happy Happy Happy, Quorum Song!

*dances*

Esteemed Ambassador of Cobdenia,

Sanctaria congratulates you on obtaining the quota and also pledges their support when it comes to be voted on.

The delegation from Ewing Forest likes this bill and will support it once it reaches the Assembly floor.


(And on a small side note; we're formerly Desh-Shrik)

Congrats on reaching quorum.

Great news! Your resolution is at the front of the queue, and should be up for vote in a few hours.

Congratulation on reaching quorum. After carefully reading your resolution, MapleLeafss nation fully supports this resolution and would invite every nation to vote for this resolution.

As I will be in a planning meeting for "inviting a neighboring nation to dinner" shortly, and will miss the transistion of this discussion from "poll" to "Item for vote", I'll speak my qualms now (and possibly repeat them latter!)

The Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris finds this item up for vote to be another example of "well meaning" legislation, that sadly has several dealbreaking flaws to it. These I now list:

1) "DEFINES a "military internee" as a member of a belligerent armed force of either hostile powers found present and held in a neutral or non-belligerent nation. This excludes escaped PoWs who have made their way to non-belligerent nations" ~~~~~ "neutral" nations are expected to capture/hold folks? Doesn't that violate the word?

2) "d) Protection against intimidation" ~~~ How do you expect to keep them contained then???

3) "b) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW" ~~~
Bad!!! PoW's per my nation's regs are placed in NEON PINK jump-suits, with NEON blaze orange POW on the back. Cheap and easy to catch them if they somehow escape and get their explosive collars off.

4) "PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion, medical procedures not required to ensure such person's health, killed (including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered), and other such violations of human rights" ~~~
No mental interrogation or coercion? If you can't get info out of them somehow, why bother taking prisoners in the first place?

Again, well meaning item for vote, but will be receiving a NO vote.

I have this resolution a lot of thought (actually that’s a lie, I have to go to the Eyesore Palace in a couple of days for my monthly ceremonial and diplomatic appearances and Nanki-Poo hasn’t come up to speed with WA protocol so I only gave this a quick glance) and in general I support this fine resolution.

DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation

-- "You're found on the battlefield, so you must be an enemy soldier", could just as well be a civilian who happens to have a farm nearby, or something like that.

DEFINES a "civilian internee" as a civilian national of a belligerent nation present and held in an opposing belligerent nation at the outbreak of hostilities against whom no reasonable suspicion of espionage, sabotage, subversion or other criminal charges exists. The right to intern or not such persons remains the privilege of the nation in question

-- It is allowed to intern innocent people, based solely on their nationality?

DEFINES a "military internee" as a member of a belligerent armed force of either hostile powers found present and held in a neutral or non-belligerent nation. This excludes escaped PoWs who have made their way to non-belligerent nations.

-- A neutral nation must capture soldiers found in their, neutral and sovereign territory.

MANDATES that all PoWs and civilian and military internees, be they held in camps or otherwise, are to be supplied, free of charge, with the following, without unreasonable discrimination:

-- So some discrimination is reasonable? Who decides?

b) PoWs may be questioned to establish their name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commissioning), and pertinent medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by PoWs

-- Why should a PoW be forced to give something like this up? That could be harmfull if he for example is caught in a struggle about religion.

The resolution is clearly written with good intentions, but contains flaws, and therefore should not be passed.

--
Batavorum Haerlemensis.

-- "You're found on the battlefield, so you must be an enemy soldier", could just as well be a civilian who happens to have a farm nearby, or something like that.
Doesn't that fairly amply demonstrate that being 'found on the battlefield' isn't 'good reason'?
-- It is allowed to intern innocent people, based solely on their nationality?
The WA has never passed a resolution on habeas corpus. So they could already do this anyway.
A neutral nation must capture soldiers found in their, neutral and sovereign territory.
Nope.
So some discrimination is reasonable? Who decides?
It's up to each nation to interpret their obligations under international law.
Why should a PoW be forced to give something like this up? That could be harmfull if he for example is caught in a struggle about religion.
Given it is specified that only information of 'no military importance' is included, I fail to see how. This clause is probably to help nations comply with Resolution #9, "Prevention of Torture", which defines prohibition of religious expression as a form of torture.

--Samantha Benson
Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The government of the Emperor of Urgench has as yet not formalised its position on this resolution. The reason for this is that we find it hard to discern the guiding principles of it.

Are the authors of this resolution concerned with the welfare of those imprisoned during conflict be they millitary or civillian? Are the authors more concerned with the security and the rights of beligerent states to safe guard the integrity of their war effort? Or perhaps the authors are trying to create a balance between these agenda?

Our first readings of this resolution suggest that the last may be the case, however in attempting a "pragmatic" approach we fear this resolution may have been rendered neither fish nor foul.

Some aspects of this resolution seem to contradict each other in their rationale, offering humane treatment to pows at the exspense of national interest with one hand and implementing radical powers of state control and international obligations which may be in variance with the custom of many nations and regions with the other.

Without some clarification our current position is abstention with the possibility of a no vote should we be convinced that this resolution is qualitatively a bad thing.


yours e.t.c. ,

It is primarily about the dignified and humane treatment of military and civilians during war. I can see how the "right to intern" civilians may seem a little bit counter intuative, but there are many reasons for this:
1) Banning it would just create exploitative loopholes, and thus civilian internees would not be subject to any human rights whatsoever
2) The ability to use internment as a sort of deterrent from enemy aliens from engaging in subversion etc. i.e. "If I act like a naughty boy, I may find the rest of my coutrymen imprisoned"
3) Prevents creative loophole exploitation with regards, say, paramilitary forces, who may not be technically military and thus wouldn't count as "PoWs", and thus ensures them to be treated with respect
3) Preventing "locking the stable door after the horse has bolted". The right to defence is probably one of the most important rights a nation has, and it would be
4) It's worth bearing in mind that interning enemy aliens is not something a nation at war would do unless there were honest fears about the security of the state, and the right to defence is probably one of the most important rights a nation has and I think we can agree that there are security concerns with respect enemy aliens (there's no point waiting to get the evidence needed to arrest a spy if he's already given your secrets away). However, to intern large numbers of people requires an awful lot of manpower, thereby hampering the direct war effort of the nation. Basically, a reasonable nation would only do it if there is good reason, otherwise it's just damaging it's own war aims

It largely acts as a case of "well, this is probably going to happen anyway, so let's let it happen in such a way the dignity of those interned is upheld"

It is primarily about the dignified and humane treatment of military and civilians during war. I can see how the "right to intern" civilians may seem a little bit counter intuative, but there are many reasons for this:
1) Banning it would just create exploitative loopholes, and thus civilian internees would not be subject to any human rights whatsoever
2) The ability to use internment as a sort of deterrent from enemy aliens from engaging in subversion etc. i.e. "If I act like a naughty boy, I may find the rest of my coutrymen imprisoned"
3) Prevents creative loophole exploitation with regards, say, paramilitary forces, who may not be technically military and thus wouldn't count as "PoWs", and thus ensures them to be treated with respect
3) Preventing "locking the stable door after the horse has bolted". The right to defence is probably one of the most important rights a nation has, and it would be
4) It's worth bearing in mind that interning enemy aliens is not something a nation at war would do unless there were honest fears about the security of the state, and the right to defence is probably one of the most important rights a nation has and I think we can agree that there are security concerns with respect enemy aliens (there's no point waiting to get the evidence needed to arrest a spy if he's already given your secrets away). However, to intern large numbers of people requires an awful lot of manpower, thereby hampering the direct war effort of the nation. Basically, a reasonable nation would only do it if there is good reason, otherwise it's just damaging it's own war aims

It largely acts as a case of "well, this is probably going to happen anyway, so let's let it happen in such a way the dignity of those interned is upheld"

We thank the honoured and esteemed Ambassador for their prompt reply.

their rationale presumes that internable civilians reside or a present in large numbers within a nation with which their home government is at war, small numbers of civilians could easily be interned to be used as bargaining chips. A hostge situation being created on an international scale.

In any case our government would be distinctly unconcerned with what clothing our service persons were made to wear were they to be captured if our innocent civilians ( in whatever numbers) are being taken into custody at the same time.


However we do see the utility of regularising the treatment of pows and interned civilians. It is perhaps the recognition of the practice of internment as a right in international law which does strike us as unecessary.

We will consider our position and decide at a later point on how to vote.


yours e.t.c ,

Those Who Walk Alone will be voting an emphatic NO on this relolution for one huge reason. As a formerly violent nation of warring tribes that has seen the error of its ways and has adopted an environment of peace, we feel that the assertion that

"Description: REALISING that conflict is ongoing & unavoidable"

is narrowminded, pessimistic, and barbaric in its tone and message.

Lothar of the Hills
Head Walker
The Nomadic Peoples of Those Who Walk Alone

1) "DEFINES a "military internee" as a member of a belligerent armed force of either hostile powers found present and held in a neutral or non-belligerent nation. This excludes escaped PoWs who have made their way to non-belligerent nations" ~~~~~ "neutral" nations are expected to capture/hold folks? Doesn't that violate the word?

It doesn't say "neutral," does it? It says "non-belligerent." Those are two completely different things.

2) "d) Protection against intimidation" ~~~ How do you expect to keep them contained then???

I don't have any idea what this means and I doubt anyone else does.

3) "b) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW" ~~~
Bad!!! PoW's per my nation's regs are placed in NEON PINK jump-suits, with NEON blaze orange POW on the back. Cheap and easy to catch them if they somehow escape and get their explosive collars off.

How nice for your nation! I'm sure life must be just a peach over there.

4) "PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion, medical procedures not required to ensure such person's health, killed (including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered), and other such violations of human rights" ~~~
No mental interrogation or coercion? If you can't get info out of them somehow, why bother taking prisoners in the first place?

There's a difference between straight-up questioning and mental interrogation, the latter including such things as sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. etc.

Generally, one takes prisoners because they find the idea of killing defeated and disarmed soldiers distasteful and morally repugnant. Generally.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

It says a country is not allowed to force a PoW into manual labour in an industry which indirectly helps the war effort of the detaining nation. Surely the entire economy of the belligerent country indirectly helps the war effort?

The passage of the PoW Accord will fill a glaring hole in international law and extend essential rights to a group that has been historically highly vulnerable to abuse. The Federation isn't entirely happy with the exact wording in some parts of the resolution, but it has enough good in it, and my objections are so mild, that I've decided to vote in favor.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

It says a country is not allowed to force a PoW into manual labour in an industry which indirectly helps the war effort of the detaining nation. Surely the entire economy of the belligerent country indirectly helps the war effort?

...insofar as manufacturing childrens dolls will "help the boys win over there," then yes, I suppose.

N.T.
etc.

Those Who Walk Alone;14035482']Those Who Walk Alone will be voting an emphatic NO on this relolution for one huge reason. As a formerly violent nation of warring tribes that has seen the error of its ways and has adopted an environment of peace, we feel that the assertion that

"Description: REALISING that conflict is ongoing & unavoidable"

is narrowminded, pessimistic, and barbaric in its tone and message.

You're voting against a resolution that is anything but narrowminded, pessimistic or barbaric because you don't like a single line in the preamble, that isn't even an operative clause? I suppose that makes sense...I mean, you wouldn't want to base your vote on anything the resolution actually does or anything. Just saying.

Incidentally, the Altan Steppes is a nation that has been riven by ethnic, tribal and clan conflict for generations, and is just now getting over that. We don't have any problem voting for this, though. Again, just saying...

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

On consultation with his divine majesty the Emperor of Urgench's government and on the advice of our mission's military attache, his excellency Toqtamish Khan of Kazan, we are happy to say that we will be casting Urgench's vote in favour of this resolution.

May the horde of Cobdenia ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours sincerely,

Unfortunately the Government of Chasistanistan shall be casting our vote against the bill.

An enemy to Chasistanistan deserves what they have coming, and if they are captured then the consequences are the fault of their Government for allowing their capture, not ours.

Ok, here we go:

The Government of Sanctaria hereby announces it's support for this bill. However, we could not vote for it just yet.

Thankfully, ater speaking with the Region I represent, I have been able to vote for the Resolution.

You have our support.

~BW

The government of Midlandia Saniuas has decided to approve the legislation and when it passes, Shall not be unwritten. You Have the Support and The Forces of Midlandia Saniuas.

Unfortunately the Government of Chasistanistan shall be casting our vote against the bill.

An enemy to Chasistanistan deserves what they have coming, and if they are captured then the consequences are the fault of their Government for allowing their capture, not ours.


Senator Sulla turns around and picks up a custard pie. Briefly he checks the wind conditions in the festering snakepit...err...WA general assembly. Smiling a most unpleasent smile he hurls the pie at the august representative from Chasistanistan, hitting said rep in the kisser.

"Fine rationalization there, old boy. Must have taken you all night to come up with that brilliant observation. Perhaps you should give some thought that maybe your enemies might respond in the same way, and treat your soldiers likewise?"

The use of POWs as a labour force is unacceptable to the Commonwealth. I urge others nations, delegates or not, to voice opposition to this shallow travesty of an accord. A new POW accord should be put to the WA with stronger protections for the men and women serving in our armed forces.

This bill is left wing radicalism at it's worst. A nation may detain POW's but can't use them as labor and at the same time is required to feed them. In war this would heavily discourage taking prisoners and helping enemy wounded since it would mean they would drain the capturing nation of it's resources for no benefit. I oppose this measure and as a regional delegate I have voted against it.

The WA has never passed a resolution on habeas corpus. So they could already do this anyway.Just because the WA has not passed a resolution against it, does not mean we should leave it that way.
It's up to each nation to interpret their obligations under international law.It is clearly written with good intent, but could be open to interpration in ways that are not ment, and could be against the basic principles of human rights.
Given it is specified that only information of 'no military importance' is included, I fail to see how. This clause is probably to help nations comply with Resolution #9, "Prevention of Torture", which defines prohibition of religious expression as a form of torture.Giving up information can only help other nations in torturing PoW's who gave up the information according to this resolution, only to find out that the other nation is not willing to adhere to it. And since information of military relevance is excluded, I fail to see what other use a nation has for this information but use it against the PoW.

-- The People's Republic of Batavorum Haerlemensis,
WA Delegate of the Alliance of Independant States.

The use of POWs as a labour force is unacceptable to the Commonwealth. I urge others nations, delegates or not, to voice opposition to this shallow travesty of an accord. A new POW accord should be put to the WA with stronger protections for the men and women serving in our armed forces.

c) Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force. Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims. Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour. Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent

Such labor would be very limited(most likely farm labor to feed the civillians).. don't make me break out amother pie.

This bill is left wing radicalism at it's worst. A nation may detain POW's but can't use them as labor and at the same time is required to feed them. In war this would heavily discourage taking prisoners and helping enemy wounded since it would mean they would drain the capturing nation of it's resources for no benefit. I oppose this measure and as a regional delegate I have voted against it.

Did you not even read clause C? What part do you not understand? You can't let POWs work to support the war effort(like making them build war machines or armements). Farming for civilians would be permitted. Its been done throught history. I'm begining to feel the urge to use another pie.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I read article C. I read the entire proposal, and it directly conflicts the right for our nations to wage war and treat POW's as we deem most beneficial to our war efforts. This resoultion directly violates our right to extract information and use POW's to add to our war production in exchange for their food and safety.

Ah, I see. Torture them and force them into slave labor. Did you give any thoughts that your enemies might try the same thing with your own soldiers?

DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation


The nation of Hellanicus also takes direct issue with the wording of the definition of a Prisoner of War. Specifically the phrase "or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force". This would in effect remove our right to interrogate spies, enemy non combatants, and members of terrorist organizations. The nation of Hellanicus and the entire gamefaqs region can not endorse a bill that would grant illegal and unlawful combatants the same rights and protections as members of an opposing nations military. This bill granting these rights to any opposing armed force directly interferes with the nations counterterrorism and counterintelligence agendas.

Such labor would be very limited(most likely farm labor to feed the civillians).. don't make me break out amother pie.

Did you not even read clause C? What part do you not ubnderstand? you can't let POWs work to support the wsr effort(like making them build war machines or armements). farming for civilians would be permitted. its been done throught history. I'm begining to feel the urge to use another pie.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Without breaking out any pies ... The labour provisions of this document are weak and open to abuse. Obtaining the consent of a prisoner for labour is a very sketchy area. These are persons being detained by a foreign power, possibly in a foreign land, so how can consent be established?

Overall this document is very weak. The Commonwealth applauds the efforts to get an accord of this nature entrenched, however we will not support its approval until it is shored up with some real protections for POWs. Clearly a more exhaustive document to protect POWs is needed.

The nation of Rease commends the intent to keep our PoW's safe. However we agree with the ambassador of Gay Reform Jews over "prisoner for labour" in section (c). Our leaders agree that "prisoner for labour" should be stricken or changed to point out that PoW's may provide labour only to better their quality of living while in custody.

Our ambassador loves a good pie. He prefers freshly baked apple.

After looking over the current proposal at vote I can see some falts with it but feel we can live with them so we vote for this one....

If it has not been said that enemy military are in no way excused from our laws and once they break any of them become wanted criminals not military doing their duty. Thus once they are caught and charged with the crime they are charged criminals not military and under new rules. Once convicted of the crime they will be sentenced and that sentence carried out. Thus we find little problem with separating criminals from honor bound military who fight by a code not maddness as criminals do. Even when on of our own military fails to follow our codes of honor in war they become criminals and face the courts... regardless of who they make a victum.

Murder and Rape here warrant hanging.. and there is no life in prison here, or time in prison that you sit on your arse and do nothing if you want to ever get out of prison. We are not a welfare state supporting those who choose a life of crime by placing them in luxary prisons while our honest citizens struggle to keep them there... that don't happen here; criminals pay for their crimes or hang and then if their family want to bury them and can afford it they get buried otherwise they feed the sharks in the waters around our island nation.


ZW, CWAA

After looking over the current proposal at vote I can see some falts with it but feel we can live with them so we vote for this one....

If it has not been said that enemy military are in no way excused from our laws and once they break any of them become wanted criminals not military doing their duty. Thus once they are caught and charged with the crime they are charged criminals not military and under new rules. Once convicted of the crime they will be sentenced and that sentence carried out. Thus we find little problem with separating criminals from honor bound military who fight by a code not maddness as criminals do. Even when on of our own military fails to follow our codes of honor in war they become criminals and face the courts... regardless of who they make a victum.

Murder and Rape here warrant hanging.. and there is no life in prison here, or time in prison that you sit on your arse and do nothing if you want to ever get out of prison. We are not a welfare state supporting those who choose a life of crime by placing them in luxary prisons while our honest citizens struggle to keep them there... that don't happen here; criminals pay for their crimes or hang and then if their family want to bury them and can afford it they get buried otherwise they feed the sharks in the waters around our island nation.


ZW, CWAA



What a charmingly pointless intervention. We now know exactly how the honoured Ambassador's nation deals with it's miscreants, whether we ever wished to know or not. It proves that every day spent at this organisation is an education, in what we do not as yet know, but an education non the less.

yours e.t.c ,

Clarisse Chang De Pic, the representative delegate from Avarahn stood up.

" Before Avarahn decides to vote, we feel that several facts need to be determined first about this proposed law. I have a question for the other nations to anwer, it states that torture and any form of mental and physical coercion or interrogation may not be used on POW's and military or civilian detainees . But how would a sovereign nation defend itself from enemy attacks if it cannot interrogate or coerce its captures prisoners to provide the truth ? The truth may be necessary in order to protect innocent lives and property.".

Clarisse looked around the chambers at the other delegates and sat down.

2) "d) Protection against intimidation" ~~~ How do you expect to keep them contained then???
Have you tried walls and a locked door?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This will remove nations rights to question terrorists and spies. We already can't torture anyone we capture but now we won't be able to question them everything they say has to be freely given. This bill eliminates any possible reason to spare the life of a spy, terrorist, or take prisoners in war. Many nations will if this bill passes, immedeately execute terrorists and spies, and deny treatment to enemy wounded. This proposal may seem humane on the surface, but its negative implications are far greater and will help spread terrorism and suicide missions in places where they don't exist now.

This will remove nations rights to question terrorists and spies. We already can't torture anyone we capture but now we won't be able to question them everything they say has to be freely given. This bill eliminates any possible reason to spare the life of a spy, terrorist, or take prisoners in war. Many nations will if this bill passes, immedeately execute terrorists and spies, and deny treatment to enemy wounded. This proposal may seem humane on the surface, but its negative implications are far greater and will help spread terrorism and suicide missions in places where they don't exist now.


Unless the honoured Ambassador's nation is formally at war with a nation who's army is completely composed of secret service persons or terrorists we imagine that this resolution will have none of the dire effects they imagine.

In any case numerous highly effective forms of information gathering are completely uneffected by this resolution

yours e.t.c. ,

Clarisse Chang De Pic, the representative delegate from Avarahn stood up.

" Before Avarahn decides to vote, we feel that several facts need to be determined first about this proposed law. I have a question for the other nations to anwer, it states that torture and any form of mental and physical coercion or interrogation may not be used on POW's and military or civilian detainees . But how would a sovereign nation defend itself from enemy attacks if it cannot interrogate or coerce its captures prisoners to provide the truth ? The truth may be necessary in order to protect innocent lives and property.".

Clarisse looked around the chambers at the other delegates and sat down.

Giving up information can only help other nations in torturing PoW's who gave up the information according to this resolution, only to find out that the other nation is not willing to adhere to it. And since information of military relevance is excluded, I fail to see what other use a nation has for this information but use it against the PoW.
Well, once again, Resolution #9 defines one form of torture as:
-Denial of right to religious observance,
So one reason to inform their captors of their religion is to ensure they are allowed that right. If we capture a PoW, it's reasonable to ask them if they are a Jew, so that we can avoid serving them pork. If we're not allowed to ask if they're a Hindu or not, it's going to be difficult to know whether or not we can feed them with beef curry.

I agree with this resolution in principle and wish I had joined in the debate during the drafting process. I also think it is mostly drafted really well.

I was surprised to see “PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation”. This goes further than the Geneva Convention, which states “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” The Geneva Convention however allows questioning of PoWs “Every prisoner of war, when questioned…”

The Geneva Convention does however ban torture “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. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” This resolution does not mention torture.

My issue is therefore with the word interrogation

The free dictionary by Farlex states,
“in·ter·ro·gate (…)
tr.v. in·ter·ro·gat·ed, in·ter·ro·gat·ing, in·ter·ro·gates
1. To examine by questioning formally or officially. …
2. Computer Science To transmit a signal for setting off an appropriate response.

[Middle English enterrogate, from Latin interrogre, interrogt- : inter-, in the presence of; see inter- + rogre, to ask; see reg- in Indo-European roots.]

in·terro·gation n.
in·terro·gation·al adj.
in·terro·gator n.”

Snefaldia stated, “There's a difference between straight-up questioning and mental interrogation, the latter including such things as sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. etc.”

However I am not sure what is meant by “physical or mental interrogation”. I would know if torture was used here instead of interrogation.

I would like to point out to Clarisse Chang De Pic, the representative delegate from Avarahn that the word “torture” does not appear in the resolution. I just wish it did.

I wonder if is possible to define “physical or mental interrogation” only as torture?
I am open to persuasion.

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

" Before Avarahn decides to vote, we feel that several facts need to be determined first about this proposed law. I have a question for the other nations to anwer, it states that torture and any form of mental and physical coercion or interrogation may not be used on POW's and military or civilian detainees . But how would a sovereign nation defend itself from enemy attacks if it cannot interrogate or coerce its captures prisoners to provide the truth ? The truth may be necessary in order to protect innocent lives and property."

The truth is very unlikely to come out of an interrogation. Frankly, scouting and intelligence on your nation's part is going to give you more reliable results.

On the other hand, do you really want to give licence to your enemies to torture and interrogate your troops?

Military Internees should be required to follow any lawful order of any of their captors. This includes labor that does not directly aid the war effort. ie. Cleaning the facilities in which the internees are housed, helping in the hospitals where internees are being treated, etc.

Captors should be allowed to mark an internee with something such as an arm band that can be removed easily. This would distinguish internees from combatants, and could be removed by the internee upon escape from the camp.

-Delegate of Slothoania

Finding myself in agreement with several of the previous comments regarding the wording forbidding interrogation of prisoners; perhaps it would have been better to simply forbid 'compelling' a POW to divulge information by any means. It seems to me, bribery for information is a fair tactic. Or plying a captured officer with a bit of alcohol, and letting him or her run their mouth to their hearts content. (Note that I am not advocating drugging a prisoner by force or deception for any purpose. Nor am I advocating withholding necessities from prisoners unless they talk.)

I thank you for your time, and humbly yield the floor.

The truth is very unlikely to come out of an interrogation. Frankly, scouting and intelligence on your nation's part is going to give you more reliable results.

On the other hand, do you really want to give licence to your enemies to torture and interrogate your troops?

The delegate for Avarahn responded, " Yes, but while that may be partially true, persuasion and passive interrogation are quite effective in persuading POW's into some form of cooperation, while not all the time but nevertheless it still does work. Also, we would never give license to the enemy to torture our troops, but we feel that every nation has the right to interrogate foreign solidiers in times of war as long as it does not greatly harm the individual in question. But our problem is that under this resolution, even interrogation is banned ?? What about asking questions ? That could be defined as mental interrogation and torture ..".

You are allowed to interrogate PoW's under this resolution - I have no idea where this idea that you can't has come from. You just can't physically or mentally interrogate them, interrogate them using physical or mental means. I would have thought the turn of phrase would be self evident. Or are people now unable to read adverbs?

You are allowed to interrogate PoW's under this resolution - I have no idea where this idea that you can't has come from. You just can't physically or mentally interrogate them, interrogate them using physical or mental means. I would have thought the turn of phrase would be self evident. Or are people now unable to read adverbs?

yeah ..what i meant was asking questions under onterrogation is or can be taken as a form of mental interrogation right ???

I must agree. The wording of

"b) PoWs may be questioned to establish their name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commissioning), and pertinent medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by PoWs,"

would seem to fairly explicitly exclude any questions of military significance. As the delegate from the Theocracy of Merisum, I can tell you that my nation cannot stand for a resolution that would prevent reasonable questioning of PoWs. While interrogation is to be discouraged and abhorred, there must be allowances for the extraction of tactically significant intelligence.

yeah ..what i meant was asking questions under onterrogation is or can be taken as a form of mental interrogation right ???

Interpreting that way would give up your right to question and there is nothing stopping you from doing interpretting it us such. But I don't see why you would.

...would seem to fairly explicitly exclude any questions of military significance.

It would. If there was a comma after "information". There isn't.

Why should prisoners be treated well? It's there fault they got captured!

Why should prisoners be treated well? It's there fault they got captured!

I cannot seriously believe we have people suggesting prisoners be treated poorly in this day and age! Are you all 12 years old, do you have no concept of maltreatment, genocide, torture?

It's an amazing thing that we live in a day when even the slightest bruise on a PoW will call down the wolves, and yet there are people who decry extending protections- nay, basic human liberties- to unfortunate people who are just doing their duty for their country.

Some of you delegates would be better served by building a time machine and travelling a thousand years in the past, when it was common to boil enemies alive, skin the ambassadors of unfriendly neighbours, and burn unsuccessful generals at the stake. Or maybe this apprehensive behavior still goes on in your nations, to my eternal disgust if it does.

The bottom line is that this resolution extends protection to soldiers captured in the execution of their duty, most of whom I'm sure would rather be at home with their families and friends than doing the militaristic bidding of some madman dictator who would rather put a bullet in the head of a scared, frightened soldier than show the true worth of his soul and extend compassion.

My people have always believed it is easier to catch children with sweets than by beating them with a stick. The idiom itself doesn't translate so well, but I'm sure you understand the meaning. I hope you monsters never sleep at night.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

I hope you monsters never sleep at night.

Not to put too fine a point on it. *chuckles*

Good representative of Cobdenia, this proposal is well worthy of the applause we offer for it.

If I may, however, might I question the effectiveness of clauses A through to E? I expect that no flaws would be consciously exploited by those who support this legislation - which will hopefully be great in number. However, in regards to those who would prefer the practice of PoW mistreatment, I worry.

The proposal does not specifically mandate that the managers of the prison complex are to supply any of the necessities listed - but instead that the PoWs must receive them...regardless of who the benefactors are. More worringly, the proposal does not indicate that the PoWs are to be given an adequate supply of food, for example, but they are only to be provided "food". Full stop. Which could obviously mean any amount - be it three a day, once a week, or just one spoonful upon arrival.

Perhaps it might have been beneficial to additionally require that PoWs be adequately provided for to maintain their normal state of health at all times?

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Preisdent Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

I have met with the United Socialist State Senate, and we have very quickly come to an agreement. We shall vote FOR this bill, without reservation.

This bill is a very personal one for me. As many of you may know, before the fall of the Soviet Socialist Republics of the West Pacific, I was commander in the People's Army. While I was not stationed at any of the POW camps, I did witness some of the atrocities that occured in the War Brinsk Prisoner Interrogation Camp in Verotik. I still have nightmares about those few days I spent training there. No country had the right do do these things.

One reason I helped form the Revolutionary Army and took jaynova from Soviet control was the treatment of its prisoners. The USSJ will never treat prisoners of war as anything less than human beings, and she will not tolerate any one else doing so, either.

This act is necessary to further pull this world from the chaos and barbarism that goes on all over the world."

As a military man myself this proposal seems very well intended and I only have a few issues with this bill:

1) I have no quarrel with a nation disarming PoW's at all. It would be naive to think one can hold military prisoners without taking away there arms, but it is a long standing custom to never take an officers pistol away from him. The traditional custom is to disarm him at capture and upon internment, return to him his unloaded pistol.

2) Also while it mentions Commissioned Officers shall not do manual work it makes no provision for the Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO's). A Staff Sergeant is a supervisor not a grunt and should not be expected to retain his rank and position while in enemy detainment.

3) While this might be left up to each nation I know the United States Military has a quasi-structured plan for their troop detained in PoW's camps. It allows for the senior Officer or NCO to take command of the detainee's and act as the commanding officer of the group. This "commander" is the representative for the entire group and is charged with maintaining the morale and discipline of the imprisoned soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen.

4) I do believe for the sake of military bearing and overall discipline within the PoW camp that this proposal strictly outlines the feeding and housing of troops needs to be regulated to prevent fraternization. The best way to destroy the morale of troops is to belittle the chain of command they trust. Officers should not be housed or fed with enlisted men, just as NCO's should not be housed or fed with lower enlisted.

Why should prisoners be treated well? It's there fault they got captured!

By the ignorance of your comment I can obviously tell you have never served in the military or never seen combat, and if you have then you are too arrogant to learn the lessons that war teaches.

As trained and disciplined as any solider can be you will be scared when you are shot at.Your training and discipline will counter-act that fear any you will defend yourself, but deep inside you are still shitting your pants.

The purpose of this proposal is to realize that the men and women who serve in the military are still human beings themselves. That they too are entitled to human handling while imprisoned by the opposing nation.

To treat them inhumanely, is just as immoral as it would be to treat your own soldiers and citizens inhumanely.

I applaud the service of all nations military and applaud this resolution as a beacon of hope and light for all service members and their families.

While I agree with this resolution and in general agree with the fine comments of the representative of Patrick Gentry I do have one particular problem. (OOC: This is from my many conversations over the course of decades with my father who was a WWII POW in Germany) While separating the officers and the non commissioned officers from the regular enlisted seems like a good idea (as is the notion of not having officers work) it in turn creates a potentially demoralizing condition through separation. This becomes more important when different branches of a military service have different levels of troops deployed to the front lines. For example the bulk of army POW will be enlisted. In the case of the air force all of the POW will in general be officers.

(OOC: Most of the anger my father had was after the fact when the fly boy ex-POW officers started taking command of all the ex-POW posts. After all, they had separate quarters and didn’t have to go out every day and work like the enlisted. But they wanted to be the first to the table for all the military events. (In WWII, Germany had different camps – each with different names – for enlisted, officers, air force, navy, and merchant seamen.)

Why should prisoners be treated well? It's there fault they got captured!

You mean you expect your troops to commit seppuku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku) if it appears they're going to be captured by the enemy?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Why should prisoners be treated well? It's there fault they got captured!

With that remark a custard pie comes flying out from the Palentine delegation, the flight path seeming a little strange. The pie seems to be dipping down, signifing a clean miss, when at the last minute it rises upwards, hitting the ambassador in the kisser.

"I'll be damned, you can throw a knuckler with one of these. maybe I'll try a Carl Hubble screwball next.", said the good but unwholesome Senator Sulla in a tone of amazement.

You are allowed to interrogate PoW's under this resolution - I have no idea where this idea that you can't has come from. You just can't physically or mentally interrogate them, interrogate them using physical or mental means. I would have thought the turn of phrase would be self evident. Or are people now unable to read adverbs?

I can inform the ambassador that it is in the section that starts, "PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation”. As I said if the word torture was where interrogation is I would have no issue.

As interrogation means to ask questions it could be stated that these internees are not to be subjected to physical questioning or mental questioning. Some nations may have beings that can question mentally, but we can only question by speaking which is physical. Physical in the resolution means "of the body as opposed to the mind". Speech is of the body.

Please could the ambassador explain how questioning is allowed as long is it is not physical or mental interrogation?

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

Macwick;14038630']Please could the ambassador explain how questioning is allowed as long is it is not physical or mental interrogation?

If you want to play semantic games to stop yourself ever questioning a PoW, don't let me hold you up. If, however, you are capable like most of us of asking serious questions WITHOUT shouting, screaming or shooting wildly into the air, then you won't have a problem.

(OOC: seriously, think of what behaviour in a police drama would get evidence from an interview thrown out of court. That's what you can't do. Mysteriously, the police still obtain evidence from interviews.)

NO! JUST NO!
They joined the army, own fold, they shoud knowm that they woud be killed or hurt!
This is CRAZY! If we do like this, why dont we just, capture them, bring him to a prison, give him the keys, a bazooka, a desert eagle and a mp5! If we are doing it, lets just let them kill everybody in the prison, let them free and invade our nations!
NOOOO!
I woud step out of the WA in a minute if this is a new rule.

So when one of your police officers is injured, you refuse to give him treatment because he knew he (or she) could be killed or hurt?

Sure, war is dangerous. We don't have to kick it up a notch by commiting terrible acts on prisoners. And hey... if you don't like it, shoot them all.

No prisoners, no complaints.

Jaris Krytellin stands up to rebut the Roef ambassador's remarks.

NO! JUST NO!

Hysterical much, are we?

They joined the army, own fold, they shoud knowm that they woud be killed or hurt!

Being injured or killed in combat is one thing; being mistreated as a prisoner is quite another.

This is CRAZY!

Oh, this is hardly crazy. The things the Argali do to yaks, that's crazy. Possibly inhumane, also. Maybe we should write a resolution on that...

(Arjel Khazaran grabs one of the pies from the Palentine table and flings it at Krytellin. Krytellin ducks, and the pie pegs the Roef ambassador square on the forehead.)

If we do like this, why dont we just, capture them, bring him to a prison, give him the keys, a bazooka, a desert eagle and a mp5! If we are doing it, lets just let them kill everybody in the prison, let them free and invade our nations!

Oh, now you're just being silly. Guaranteeing humane treatment to POWs is not even remotely similar to your overdramatic example. You're still holding them prisoner, aren't you? And if your jailers are dumb enough to give POWs keys and guns, then you have bigger problems than this resolution.

NOOOO!

Wow, you really should see a doctor about that hysterical condition you have. Maybe they can prescribe you something.

I woud step out of the WA in a minute if this is a new rule.

A minute? That's just too long.

NO! JUST NO!
They joined the army, own fold, they shoud knowm that they woud be killed or hurt!
This is CRAZY! If we do like this, why dont we just, capture them, bring him to a prison, give him the keys, a bazooka, a desert eagle and a mp5! If we are doing it, lets just let them kill everybody in the prison, let them free and invade our nations!
NOOOO!
I woud step out of the WA in a minute if this is a new rule.

Without missing a beat, Senator Sulla throws another pie, this one seeming to curve outside, before breaking inwards, hitting the ambassador in the mush. Giggling like a Japenese schoolgirl eating Pocky(TM), the unwholesome senator says,
"This is great! I think I'll have to try out an Early Wynn Fastball next time."

(i didnt have a ambassador there! But hey)
The Roef ambassador taked up a pie, trowed it back to the trowers, hits them in the face and trows a second.

Jaris Krytellin stands up to rebut the Roef ambassador's remarks.



Hysterical much, are we?



Being injured or killed in combat is one thing; being mistreated as a prisoner is quite another.



Oh, this is hardly crazy. The things the Argali do to yaks, that's crazy. Possibly inhumane, also. Maybe we should write a resolution on that...

(Arjel Khazaran grabs one of the pies from the Palentine table and flings it at Krytellin. Krytellin ducks, and the pie pegs the Roef ambassador square on the forehead.)



Oh, now you're just being silly. Guaranteeing humane treatment to POWs is not even remotely similar to your overdramatic example. You're still holding them prisoner, aren't you? And if your jailers are dumb enough to give POWs keys and guns, then you have bigger problems than this resolution.



Wow, you really should see a doctor about that hysterical condition you have. Maybe they can prescribe you something.



A minute? That's just too long.

O, this was a very nice post, i was laughing a minute after i read it.

(i didnt have a ambassador there! But hey)
The Roef ambassador taked up a pie, trowed it back to the trowers, hits them in the face and trows a second.



Before any Ambassador can earn the right to throw pies within the hallowed halls of this venerated organisation they should at least do it the decency of posting in its debates in intelligable language.

Since the presumably honoured Ambassador for Roef has not done this and in fact has contributed what appear to be the ravings of a hyperactive child with behavioural inadequacies we suggest, humbly, that they postpone the undertaking of any pie throwing untill such time as they have earnt enough respect among their peers to prevent this activity seeming utterly contemptable when enacted by their person.


yours e.t.c. ,

Where on earth does this resolution-at-vote says mp5s should be provided?

I believe I've found it, Charlotte Ryberg.


MANDATES that all PoWs and civilian and military internees, be they held in camps or otherwise, are to be supplied, free of charge, with the following, without unreasonable discrimination:
a) Shelter, fully nutritional food, washing facilities, water, & competent medical attention
b) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW
c) Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired;
d) Protection against intimidation, humiliation, insults & physical attack
e) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.
f) The keys to their jail cells and other doors imprisoning them.
g) Armaments stronger than that of their guards, so that the prisoners may self-enforce this act.
h) The hysterical ranting of the Roef ambassador for comic relief during their time of imprisonment.

What does Red Nose Day or Sport Relief got to do with this resolution? This is a resolution on protecting the basic rights of a PoW, not one that turns a PoW camp into a Night club or some sort of TV studio for crying out loud...

The Holy Empire of Tybra votes against this resolution.
Main reason is that when we have a PoW we would like to torture him to get information out of him, we will use any means to each our goals.
This will also make soldiers lazy, how can they fight to the death without having an extra push out of fear, propoganda works but a soldier is still human..ish.
Also Tybra's PoW: Fight to the Death, is a great hit on television, it gives the people some relief and at the same time encourages their bloodlust.
Besides, sheltering them and feeding them costs money (valiel in our case) it's cheaper to just execute them, great for trailers and scaring the enemy and political activists.

This proposal is ridiculous! We can't interrogate an enemy combatant? We can use them for labor, but not all labor? Who is enforcing this anyway, and why the hell do I have to treat people who are trying to kill the young men and women of Si-Don, in some cases, better than we treat our own troops?

Senator Sulla turns around and picks up a custard pie. Briefly he checks the wind conditions in the festering snakepit...err...WA general assembly. Smiling a most unpleasent smile he hurls the pie at the august representative from Chasistanistan, hitting said rep in the kisser.

"Fine rationalization there, old boy. Must have taken you all night to come up with that brilliant observation. Perhaps you should give some thought that maybe your enemies might respond in the same way, and treat your soldiers likewise?"

Ah, but what is a soldier than a replacable human resource?


Oh, and work on your baking.

Tybra;14039395']...
Main reason is that when we have a PoW we would like to torture him to get information out of him, we will use any means to each our goals.
...

1. We know torturing people makes them say stupid stuff to make the torturers stop. The brave ones give names of football teams and the cowards give up what they know, then start making up more stuff to appear useful so they don't suffer more or get killed. Either way, sometimes the misinformation can't be easily sorted from the information and it endangers your own troops.

2. If you don't want POWs, don't take prisoners. If you take prisoners, take them out of commision and make them useful labor, which they aren't if you mistreat them. You get better intel with spies and clever trickery. People always say stuff that is more useful and accurate to people perceived as neutral or friendly than to people they hate.

3. Torture emboldens terrorism. People are more likely to want to blow your civilians up if you torture them.

My 2 cents.
....
High Counselor Eustace

Lithiroslavia votes against. While for the most part, it is a fair proposal, it goes too far with some of it's requests, and also seems relatively contradictory.

"Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force"
"Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour."

And...
"Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent "
How often do internees give consent to work for a foreign nation that is at war with his or her country?

"Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims" Another step too far. Throughout history, prisoners of war have always been used for labor, be it militarily or not, and it is in no way an inhumane practice.

Additionally, as someone previously said (and I paraphrase) "If you don't want POW's, just kill them". This ideology will no doubt gain strength, and many lives will be taken simply out of lack of wanting to care for POWs if limitations are as strong as they are.

"Force may be used only in cases where the person in question is resisting apprehension, following reasonable warnings that such force is to be used"

"PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion"

These additionally seem beyond comprehension. While torture should be undoubtedly limited, completely restricting it will in no way lead to good results. If one cannot torture, they have no use for POWs, and POW casualties will no doubt rise. "Following reasonable warnings" is an unneeded addition also. How many times must you ask someone trying to resist you to stop trying to run away before you can smack them on the head with your gun? If a prisoner was climbing over a wall, must you ask him 3 times before he gets over the top to stop?

"Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired"

This seems unenforceable:
1) A government holding hostages could say they simply censored everything.
2)A POW could easily talk in code that their captives would not understand.
3) Most civilized countries in the world don't even allow Prisoners of War to maintain contact with their home countries, especially not frequently.


With less limitations upon countries with Prisoners of War, I would accept, but with the current stranglehold, I must say I reject the proposal.

And hey... if you don't like it, shoot them all.

No prisoners, no complaints.

Good advice.

I agree with Lithiroslavia that i must reject this proposal. A prisoner of war must not be allowed to maintain contact with people from their country for risks to both the prison and the war effort. If PoW's were granted as many liberties as listed here, it would not be surprising to see enemy troops surrendering on purpose, its almost to easy to spy with this legislation. Torture cannot be condoned, but I do believe that some forms of strong arm interrogation tactics must be allowed in order to obtain as much information from the detainee's as possible.
Prisoners of war have rights as every human does but their rights were limited the day they were captured for shooting at another human. A nations duty to a PoW is to retrieve any information from them that could benefit their own nation and ensure that they remain imprisoned for the duration of the war so they do not return to the frontlone to fight another day. We are their prison guards, not their babysitters.

Lithiroslavia;14039743']Lithiroslavia votes against. While for the most part, it is a fair proposal, it goes too far with some of it's requests, and also seems relatively contradictory.

"Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force"
"Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour."

And...
"Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent "
How often do internees give consent to work for a foreign nation that is at war with his or her country?

Suprisingly often. Gives them something to do, (OoC and there is RL precedent - many Japanese Americans who were interned during the war volunteered to help the war effort, as did German Jews in Palestine and the UK)

"Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims" Another step too far. Throughout history, prisoners of war have always been used for labor, be it militarily or not, and it is in no way an inhumane practice.

It may not be inhumane, but it is undignified. Are you seriously suggesting that PoW's should be forced to commit treason?

Additionally, as someone previously said (and I paraphrase) "If you don't want POW's, just kill them". This ideology will no doubt gain strength, and many lives will be taken simply out of lack of wanting to care for POWs if limitations are as strong as they are.

Yes, well, unfortunately you can't just kill them for shits and giggles. The proposal bans both the killing of PoW's, and the killing of surrendering soldiers

"Force may be used only in cases where the person in question is resisting apprehension, following reasonable warnings that such force is to be used"

"PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion"

These additionally seem beyond comprehension. While torture should be undoubtedly limited, completely restricting it will in no way lead to good results. If one cannot torture, they have no use for POWs, and POW casualties will no doubt rise.

PoW casualties won't rise for reasons stated above. And torture is already banned by another resolution, so you couldn't torture them anyway. If you want information, you can ask nicely. Or search them for documents (which military forces actually obtain evidence. Interrogation is far too unreliable)

"Following reasonable warnings" is an unneeded addition also. How many times must you ask someone trying to resist you to stop trying to run away before you can smack them on the head with your gun? If a prisoner was climbing over a wall, must you ask him 3 times before he gets over the top to stop?

You have a strange definition of reasonable. Does it say you have to ask him mulitple times? No. Exactly.

"Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired"

This seems unenforceable:
1) A government holding hostages could say they simply censored everything.
2)A POW could easily talk in code that their captives would not understand.
3) Most civilized countries in the world don't even allow Prisoners of War to maintain contact with their home countries, especially not frequently.


With less limitations upon countries with Prisoners of War, I would accept, but with the current stranglehold, I must say I reject the proposal.

I see, and what, pray tell, would a PoW tell his folks in the code? Perhaps, I don't know, that there's lots of lovely shiny barbed wire, or the guards wear a pretty green uniform? If they have information to pass on, it can only be due to the incompetence of the prison guards, and I'm not going to legislate against stupidity.

Oh, and work on your baking.

Es zee cheff prufeeding Senetur Soolla veet hees peees I feend zeere-a is oonly oone-a epprupreeete-a respunse-a tu thees insoolt. Bork Bork Bork!
*Sven walks over to the ambassador from Chasistanistan and smacks him in the head with a rolling pin.*

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

Karasova agrees with Lithiroslavia.

Also, adding: if these soldiers have engaged in something as undignified as a war, then they have no right to demand dignified treatment from the country they have fought against. If it was by coercion of the goverment that they are there, then the government in question holds full responsibility for their treatment. Human lives are important, but petty pride isn't. As torture is already banned, there is no reason for this legislation to pass.

"The following statement below reflects the solid position(s) of the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches of The Democratic States of Valmeth. And furthermore the position(s) of The Department of Defense, IAA (Intelligence Acquisition Agency), And the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). All information contained herein are considered Top Secret and are intended for the distribution, and view, of the World Assembly only."

Official Inquiry: Prisoners of War Accord
Department of State
Secretary of State - Charles Schwabmen


Ladies and Gentlemen of the panel, It is with extremely high regard that we, The Democratic States of Valmeth, are given this great honor to meet with you and vote on this issue. An issue of grave importance indeed. An issue that will profoundly effect all of our citizens, and the citizens of the other great nations around this world.


The question is timeless, where does the line between man and monster draw itself in war? These are in fact troubled times we face here, and often in these troubled times it becomes difficult... even nearly impossible to see through the fog. To look ahead at the days when the roar of battle isn't pitched, and the blood of our children isn't painting these very floors we now stand upon.


To look ahead to these days means we need to continue on a path of international cooperation. And we need to continue to create progress, to continue to reform the Social and political landscapes that shape our future.


However, It has always been and will continue to be the position of The Democratic States of Valmeth, That freedom and Liberty are the corner stones of Democracy. And that Democracy must be secured, upheld and defended no matter the cost. This my friends is the issue at hand. Weather you follow our ideals or your own. Securing, upholding and defending those ideals should not be something easily compromised.


In stating that, we must object this Accord based upon the below 'Loopholes' as voted on by out Senate Securities Commission, and the DIA and IAA findings on the matters. Furthermore, the Joint Chiefs and other DOD Officials feel that this Accord, though a step in the right direction possess multiple threats to Valmeth's current Intelligence and Defence infrastructure by allowing "Grossly unnecessary rights to be bestowed upon Prisoners; Military, Civilian or otherwise.".


Below are the requests that The Democratic States of Valmeth have proposed be modified to achieve a 'Yes' Vote from our country.




MANDATES that all PoWs and civilian and military internees, be they held in camps or otherwise, are to be supplied, free of charge, with the following, without unreasonable discrimination:
a) Shelter, fully nutritional food, washing facilities, water, & competent medical attention
b) Replacement uniforms and/or clothing. In the case of PoWs, such uniform is to reasonably resemble the uniform with relevant insignia he is entitled to in his own force, and bear no markings to distinguish the wearer as a PoW
c) Methods by which they may contact and be contacted by relatives & friends in their homeland, although the detaining nation may censor such correspondence if desired;
d) Protection against intimidation, humiliation, insults & physical attack
e) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.

The Democratic States of Valmeth agree with partitions a),d), and e). But reject b), and c). b) - Pursuant to Article 558-12b Section 2g, of the Valmeth military intelligence and detention laws; "All prisoners be them foreign or domestic, military or civilian shall be dressed in dark or navy blue sweat suits in the winter and light weight cloth 'scrubs' in the summer and spring. Military detainees may wear dog tags to identify themselves and officers will be permitted to wear one insignia denoting rank on there left shoulder cuff. Detainees or prisoners in maximum security installations must wear orange attire. ". c) - Pursuant to Article 765-28R Section 14f, of the Valmeth military intelligence and detention laws; "Prisoners deemed tier I are afforded monitored communications with persons within Valmeth. Prisoners tier II and above are not, A letter will be sent to there next of kin informing them that the prisoner is incarcerated. Military Prisoners and PoWs are not allowed communication, foreign prisoners rights are deemed adequate or not adequate by a Judicial Magistrate in peace time.".


PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion, medical procedures not required to ensure such person's health, killed (including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered), and other such violations of human rights
a) Force may be used only in cases where the person in question is resisting apprehension, following reasonable warnings that such force is to be used. Detaining nation's forces are further permitted to search and remove any weapons and other contraband
b) PoWs may be questioned to establish their name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commissioning), and pertinent medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by PoWs
c) Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force. Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims. Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour. Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent

The Democratic States of Valmeth agree with none of the above partitions. To restrict the abilities of our intelligence resources to extract vital information from prisoners is absurd. This is an issue that we can not falter on. The information gained from these PoWs could be used to stop the conflict faster, and ease the suffering of innocent civillians caught in the fighting. We will not disclose our Interrogation techniques in any detail, however we will state that torture of any sort is not allowed within the boundaries of Valmeth. Furthermore, we can agree that using PoW's to fuel a 'war machine' would also be absurd, though the term 'manual labor' is far to broad and as such, we can not subscribe to partition c) either.

PERMITS nations to engage in repatriation of civilian internees, PoW exchanges, or conditional repatriation of either
a) Civilian and military internees may be left at liberty, military internees under the condition that they do not attempt to leave the country in which they are currently present
b) Escaped PoWs of any belligerent force who make their way to a non belligerent nation are to repatriated

The Democratic States of Valmeth agree with partition b). However partition a). is to broad. In the event that a PoW, or Civilian or Military Internee is captured or detained within The Democratic States of Valmeth, and they belong to a hostile nation, they shall not be afforded any liberty until the end of conflicts. At which time they shall be returned to there home nation. Refugee's and escaped PoWs will be returned to there homes, or given liberty. However, foreign civilian prisoners, or military prisoners (not PoWs) shall be apprehended and detained until they can be returned to there home nation to continue there sentences.


In Closing, I would like to say that I do truly feel that this Accord can work! The principals behind it are sound, and the goal here is a common one. However, it should be noted that despite these facts, there are still far to many restrictions placed on the detaining nation. Our position is that all PoWs, Prisoners, Refugees, Internees, and foreign citizens should always be treated with dignity and respect. Human rights are important for all people. However, it would be far to dangerous for us to 'tie the hands' of our governments. So long as torture is not involved, and undue hardship or pain and suffering is not imposed upon these peoples, then I ask you... What wrongs have been done? We need to remember that these people are in fact Prisoners, and as such special circumstances will arise. And we need to ensure that we are prepared to address those issues.


Thank you, and good evening.

Charles Schwabmen
Secretary Of State
Democratic States of valmeth Department of State

The delegation from Genish would like to raise a question as well as to the use of PoWs as labour. The document says, however, that "Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims". Well honestly everything is a war aim. Every piece of the economy is intrinsically connected to the war machine of the State so by this concession of non-permittance of 'treason' you are getting rid of any ability of the PoWs to be used as labour. Even if the prisoners sew together dolls to sell in the cities of the detaining country they are boosting the doll industry which in turn invests in cotton which is grown by the landed aristocracy which hedges on oil in the stock market which directly affects the war machine. The terms of the labour allowed by PoWs must be reauthored. Also, a definition of "manual labour" must be given. Is picking corn manual labor? Sewing dolls? Working with computers? Or do you mean frivolous manual labour such as digging holes and then filling them in?

Unless these issues are addressed Gernish with regretably forego voting on the otherwise positive humanitarian document.

Tybra;14039395']The Holy Empire of Tybra votes against this resolution.
Main reason is that when we have a PoW we would like to torture him to get information out of him, we will use any means to each our goals.
This will also make soldiers lazy, how can they fight to the death without having an extra push out of fear, propoganda works but a soldier is still human..ish.
Also Tybra's PoW: Fight to the Death, is a great hit on television, it gives the people some relief and at the same time encourages their bloodlust.
Besides, sheltering them and feeding them costs money (valiel in our case) it's cheaper to just execute them, great for trailers and scaring the enemy and political activists.

This proposal is ridiculous! We can't interrogate an enemy combatant? We can use them for labor, but not all labor? Who is enforcing this anyway, and why the hell do I have to treat people who are trying to kill the young men and women of Si-Don, in some cases, better than we treat our own troops?

And hey... if you don't like it, shoot them all.
No prisoners, no complaints.

Good advice.

Karasova agrees with Lithiroslavia.

Also, adding: if these soldiers have engaged in something as undignified as a war, then they have no right to demand dignified treatment from the country they have fought against. If it was by coercion of the goverment that they are there, then the government in question holds full responsibility for their treatment. Human lives are important, but petty pride isn't. As torture is already banned, there is no reason for this legislation to pass.

Senator Sulla gets a very disgusted look on his face. He reaches over a presses a big red button on his desk. Then he reached into his desk and pulled out a bottle of 101 proof Ol' Thought Provoker, and drank a generous slug. Replacing the bottle in his desk he sighs and says,

"Sweet Flaming A**crackers! I was hoping not to have to bring this out, but you idiots have provoked me to my breaking point. May God have mercy on your souls for what you are about to make me unleash on this festering snakepit."

A couple of Jagermoster members of the Palentine Delegation come in carring a largish device. It kinda resembles a Browning Ma Deuce, except the barrel seems to be about 11" in Diameter. Another couple of Jagermonsters enter the festering Snakepit with a hopper type device. Within minutes they put the device together and set it up on the good but unwholesome Senator's desk. They leave for a few minutes, then come back with some sandbags which they place around the device, turing the desk into something that slightly resembles a machine gun nest. Two of the Jagermonsters start loading Pies into the hopper, when Senator Sulla pops up from behind his desk, wearing a Prussian helmet, and aviator goggles. With a flurish of his hands he says,

"Behold the Automatic Pie-a-pult Mark 2.0! Just the perfect device to deal with such moronic statements and idiocy. Jagers are you ready!"

"Ja, mein Captian!", the Jagermosters respond enthusiastically.

Ducking back down into the fortified emplacement, the good Senator yells,
"Then fire, my Jagers! Teach the cretins a lession in Pie in the Face(TM)!!!"

Custard Pies start rapidly flying toward the delegations of [NS]Tybra, Si-Don, Deus Ordo, Ewing Forest, and Karasova.

The delegation from Genish would like to raise a question as well as to the use of PoWs as labour. The document says, however, that "Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims". Well honestly everything is a war aim. Every piece of the economy is intrinsically connected to the war machine of the State so by this concession of non-permittance of 'treason' you are getting rid of any ability of the PoWs to be used as labour. Even if the prisoners sew together dolls to sell in the cities of the detaining country they are boosting the doll industry which in turn invests in cotton which is grown by the landed aristocracy which hedges on oil in the stock market which directly affects the war machine. The terms of the labour allowed by PoWs must be reauthored. Also, a definition of "manual labour" must be given. Is picking corn manual labor? Sewing dolls? Working with computers? Or do you mean frivolous manual labour such as digging holes and then filling them in?

Unless these issues are addressed Gernish with regretably forego voting on the otherwise positive humanitarian document.



The "war effort" refered to by this resolution is of a reasonably specific nature, at least according to our reading of it. Making ice cream for the enjoyment of civilians would not be truelly considered a furtherance of a nation's war effort, but oil drilling might well be or hydrogen liquidisation might.

In any case there are plenty of forms of labour, the maintanance of the camp or its sources of food for instance, which are not directly in furtherance of the war effort and instead being of direct benefit to the pows themselves and which would seem to be uneffected by this resolution, at least according to our reading that is.

yours e.t.c.,

A typo fix suggestion:

e) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.

Drop the "ed" on deemed making it read,

e) Other facilities as a nation may deem necessary or desirable.

The reference has already been made by other members of this Assembly that providing uniforms with even insignia sewn on and in the opposing nation(s) colors seems logistically flawed and unnecessary...perhaps even harmful to the PoW in the right circumstances. I would supplicate this Assembly to remove the clause in regards to the type of uniform to be supplied as other Assembly members have done so before me.

Best regards from the people of the United Socialist States of Arianovia to all fellow member nations.

A typo fix suggestion:

e) Other facilities as a nation may deemed necessary or desirable.

Drop the "ed" on deemed making it read,

e) Other facilities as a nation may deem necessary or desirable.

The reference has already been made by other members of this Assembly that providing uniforms with even insignia even sewn on and in the opposing nation(s) colors seems logistically flawed and unnecessary...perhaps even harmful to the PoW in the right circumstances. I would supplicate this Assembly to remove the clause in regards to the type of uniform be supplied as other Assembly members have done so before me.

Best Regards From the people of the Socialist States of Arianovia to all fellow member nations.

It is quite impossible to do so now. Once the resolution is at vote, it cannot be changed.

It is quite impossible to do so now. Once the resolution is at vote, it cannot be changed.

Thanks for correction, I was ignorant of that process.

Good insight anyway United Socialist States of Arianovia.

My fellow delegates I wish I could be persuaded by assertions, but I can’t. Not matter how many times fellow delegates asserts that interrogation is allowed but “physical or mental interrogation” is not allowed, without explaining why, I am not persuaded.

Delegate Gobbannaen asserted

If you want to play semantic games to stop yourself ever questioning a PoW, don't let me hold you up. If, however, you are capable like most of us of asking serious questions WITHOUT shouting, screaming or shooting wildly into the air, then you won't have a problem.

(OOC: seriously, think of what behaviour in a police drama would get evidence from an interview thrown out of court. That's what you can't do. Mysteriously, the police still obtain evidence from interviews.)

Delegate Cobdenia asserted


And torture is already banned by another resolution, so you couldn't torture them anyway. If you want information, you can ask nicely. Or search them for documents (which military forces actually obtain evidence. Interrogation is far too unreliable)


Please will one of my fellow delegates who believes than some form of interrogation is allowed please explain how it can be done without it being either physical or mental. I beg you please explain with a rational argument please!

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

"c) Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force. Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims. Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour. Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent."

I have an extreme problem with this clause. Either the World Assembly would be promoting forced labour or this accord is too vague to include the wording that would say that the POW's would have a choice in the labour. Either way, this accord paves the way for forced labour across the world by allowing nations to use anybody considered a POW. Either way, i am voting against this bill. I hope others notice this wording, and put it into consideration before approving this issue.

Macwick;14041856']My fellow delegates I wish I could be persuaded by assertions, but I can’t. Not matter how many times fellow delegates asserts that interrogation is allowed but “physical or mental interrogation” is not allowed, without explaining why, I am not persuaded.

Delegate Gobbannaen asserted



Delegate Cobdenia asserted



Please will one of my fellow delegates who believes than some form of interrogation is allowed please explain how it can be done without it being either physical or mental. I beg you please explain with a rational argument please!

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA




Honoured Ambassador there are rarely any rational answers to irrational questions.


yours e.t.c. ,

Suprisingly often. Gives them something to do, (OoC and there is RL precedent - many Japanese Americans who were interned during the war volunteered to help the war effort, as did German Jews in Palestine and the UK)

So you actually expect internees to work in a country of people they have been shooting at and have been shot at by voluntarily? (Japanese Americans and German Jews obviously took one part of their name more seriously when they decided to volunteer. Japanese Americans obviously felt a stronger connection the the Americas, and German Jews obviously felt connection to their Jewish descent)

It may not be inhumane, but it is undignified. Are you seriously suggesting that PoW's should be forced to commit treason?


Involuntary treason can hardly be considered treason. Being a POW does not strip you of your humanity, but it is perfectly reasonable to be stripped of dignity. You were fighting another country who could easily take your life during wartime, but who spared it due to their humanity or practical reasons. Forced Labor while saving your life is not unreasonable. (Using POWs to help war effort is a time-practiced tradition reaching back to the Ancient Civilizations)


Yes, well, unfortunately you can't just kill them for shits and giggles. The proposal bans both the killing of PoW's, and the killing of surrendering soldiers
The taking of POWs is not a custom held by all civilizations, and held lightly by others. If they didn't care much about the ideas of prisoners in the first place, stricter enforcements and limitations will undoubtedly lead to less POWs and more corpses.


If you want information, you can ask nicely.

As often as asking works, you're asking for customs used by some of the most civilized cultures in the world to be abolished.



You have a strange definition of reasonable. Does it say you have to ask him mulitple times? No. Exactly.

You further pointed out another flaw with the article. It does not state exacts. Does it define reasonable? Does it say when it is ok to take action? Does it say what the governments can and cannot censor in letters?

I see, and what, pray tell, would a PoW tell his folks in the code? Perhaps, I don't know, that there's lots of lovely shiny barbed wire, or the guards wear a pretty green uniform? If they have information to pass on, it can only be due to the incompetence of the prison guards, and I'm not going to legislate against stupidity.

PoW's can have vital information about location of their camp, guard cycles, conditions, who else is held there, information they picked up, and various other things hidden in code. Many soldiers are trained to write coded messages, and saying these letters are going to "His Folks" is hardly reasonable to expect. This system which seems completely uncontrollable for where the letters actually go could no doubt be used to send messages to the military forces about current events, information, and other important facts.

The Korintari people support this resolution with hopes that if any nation captures anyone of our fighting men and women the nation will treat them according to the standard of dignity established in this proposal. Furthermore, as Korintar is a technologically advanced nation, our forces probably might never come face to face with the enemy as our military is mostly space based and controlled by computer as almost like a, albeit lethal, video game. We always offer an enemy to surrender according to mutually agreed to terms at the outset of declaration of war. If it is refused we annihilate them with advanced firebombing, thermonuclear, atomic, and positron weapons technology, deployed from 950 km above.- Korintari Executive Directorate

Custard Pies start rapidly flying toward the delegations of [NS]Tybra, Si-Don, Deus Ordo, Ewing Forest, and Karasova.

Dear embasador, *evades a pie* we highly suggest you stop throwing pies before we take you as a PoW like we want to before this resolution is accepted.

We thank the Honoured Ambassador of Urgench for their comments.

Honoured Ambassador there are rarely any rational answers to irrational questions.


Maybe there is a delegate who can give me a rational answer to my rational question. Please - we would really like to support this resolution with enthusiasm and not reluctantly.

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

I think it is a very good bill which I would support, were it not for the following:



Let's say Desh-Shrik is at war with Country X. We mount a special operation to capture the enemy commander who's whereabouts are known to us. The special forces go in, do their job, and are airlifted out of there with one prisoner more than they came with.

We want to know our enemy's strategy, positions, amounts, everything. And we have their commander. We should be able to interrogate him for military secrets and all that, while of course staying within human rights of not physically or mentally attempting to harm him.

Should this piece of fine print be changed, we would support the bill.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 8:22
I agree.

We have voted in favor. We do not see the benefit in attempting to interrogate enemy soldiers anyway, as we can gain intelligence in other ways and we can always, should the nation we are at war with either fall or not request their captured soldiers back, add the captured soldiers to our system of slavery until they are adapted enough to our culture to be freed and integrated into our citizenship or, if the PoWs request, can be sent to other nations to join the citizenship there.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

My question is, why are going to sit here and provide MORE luxury's to a prisoner of war, who is deemed an enemy, than we are own citizens? I feel that a prisoner of war should be protected from being killed, abused, assaulted, etc. However to provide 100% health care, uniforms, methods of communication? Why should I provide this to a person who is deemed an enemy?

My question is, why are going to sit here and provide MORE luxury's to a prisoner of war, who is deemed an enemy, than we are own citizens? I feel that a prisoner of war should be protected from being killed, abused, assaulted, etc. However to provide 100% health care, uniforms, methods of communication? Why should I provide this to a person who is deemed an enemy?

Have you never heard of a little thing called the "Golden Rule?" No, I don't mean, "He who has the gold makes the rules." I mean, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, if you treat any PoWs you take well, chances are that your enemy will do likewise.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Lithiroslavia;14041930']So you actually expect internees to work in a country of people they have been shooting at and have been shot at by voluntarily?
Internees. These are the ones who haven't been shooting at and shot at, remember.

Involuntary treason can hardly be considered treason.
It can, you know. Governments (and particularly large crowds of people) are rarely rational on the subject.

Being a POW does not strip you of your humanity, but it is perfectly reasonable to be stripped of dignity.
It is not, however, perfectly civilised to do so.

You were fighting another country who could easily take your life during wartime, but who spared it due to their humanity or practical reasons. Forced Labor while saving your life is not unreasonable.
Personally I reckon forced labour of any sort is unreasonable, but I'll take what little the resolution has to offer.

The taking of POWs is not a custom held by all civilizations, and held lightly by others. If they didn't care much about the ideas of prisoners in the first place, stricter enforcements and limitations will undoubtedly lead to less POWs and more corpses.
You're not getting the whole "You're in the WA, you will comply with the letter of the law" thing, are you?

As often as asking works, you're asking for customs used by some of the most civilized cultures in the world to be abolished.
Some of the "most civilized" cultures in the world think it's OK to enslave people. Just because something is an honoured custom doesn't mean it shouldn't be abolished.

You further pointed out another flaw with the article. It does not state exacts. Does it define reasonable? Does it say when it is ok to take action? Does it say what the governments can and cannot censor in letters?

[...]

PoW's can have vital information about location of their camp, guard cycles, conditions, who else is held there, information they picked up, and various other things hidden in code. Many soldiers are trained to write coded messages, and saying these letters are going to "His Folks" is hardly reasonable to expect. This system which seems completely uncontrollable for where the letters actually go could no doubt be used to send messages to the military forces about current events, information, and other important facts.

Oh look, you answered your own question.

Freedom and the right to live life without fear is a primary right of all people including POW's. Whilst at war the freedom of POW's would impact on others right to live without fear, but the need to treat POW's without fear is essential to maintain the moral stance of the human race

Have you never heard of a little thing called the "Golden Rule?" No, I don't mean, "He who has the gold makes the rules." I mean, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, if you treat any PoWs you take well, chances are that your enemy will do likewise.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

"Mr Fibble, though I do hold allot of stock in what you are saying here I must interject. Your ideals and logic are sound however I must agree with Shadow in that it seems this resolution is, in many ways far to generous towards prisoners. "

"All warriors understand the sacrifices they may be called upon to make, they understand death or capture may be inevitable. It is imperative that we treat them with honor, respect and dignity. That we keep them safe, and afford them that which we would afford any decent human being. But they are still
prisoners. They are still enemy combatants, and while a conflict is at hand they need to be treated in a manner different than we would treat our own people."

"Aside of that, I feel that the real flaw in this resolution is the fact that it touches on matters pertaining to Intelligence gathering that are superbly FLAWED. You can't make a 'blanket statement' like "no physical or mental interrogation" or statements that would limit the types of questions you can actually ask these
prisoners. These men should be allowed to be interviewed or interrogated by trained professionals, using approved interrogation techniques."

Charles Schwabmen
Secretary of State
The Diplomatic States of Valmeth

Have you never heard of a little thing called the "Golden Rule?" No, I don't mean, "He who has the gold makes the rules." I mean, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, if you treat any PoWs you take well, chances are that your enemy will do likewise.

Perhaps a better argument would be the "anti-Golden Rule." In other words if you torture and brutalize your POWS it is a good chance that the enemy will be so annoyed as to do likewise with their POWS who are your nationals. So when you lower the bar you only hurt your own nationals in the long run.

In layman's terms, when you joined the WA you forfeited all rights to your national sovereignty. What the WA says....goes. So even if you reject a proposal and it passes.....throw any notions of "doing things your way" out the window. Please allow me be the first to welcome you to the new world order's "ONE WORLD" government. Where if you don't like the outcome......haha....well you don't really have a choice, its pretty much submit or leave.

And remember kids 1+1 = 3.



There is no need to be hysterical honoured Ambasador, while it is true that continued membership of this organisation does mean compliance with its laws ( quite naturally ) any member nation may repeal a law with enough support and good arguments and replace statutes they do not like with hopefully better ones which perhaps suit them better.

yours e.t.c. ,

My question is, why are going to sit here and provide MORE luxury's to a prisoner of war, who is deemed an enemy, than we are own citizens? I feel that a prisoner of war should be protected from being killed, abused, assaulted, etc. However to provide 100% health care, uniforms, methods of communication? Why should I provide this to a person who is deemed an enemy?

Freedom and the right to live life without fear is a primary right of all people including POW's. Whilst at war the freedom of POW's would impact on others right to live without fear, but the need to treat POW's without fear is essential to maintain the moral stance of the human race

The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla and his Jagermonster gun crew turn their attention to the representatives from Shadow-Bonzi and Dapperland. The Pie-a-Pult Mark 2.0 started raining custardy mayhem on the delegates.

In layman's terms, when you joined the WA you forfeited all rights to your national sovereignty. What the WA says....goes. So even if you reject a proposal and it passes.....throw any notions of "doing things your way" out the window. Please allow me be the first to welcome you to the new world order's "ONE WORLD" government. Where if you don't like the outcome......haha....well you don't really have a choice, its pretty much submit or leave.

And remember kids 1+1 = 3.Yup, that's pretty much it. Unfortunately, childish tantrums are not grounds for dismissal from this organization.

Any thoughts

where do you go to on this screen to vote

we are not free not even your soul

i vote yes on this resolution

If you want national sovereignty don't be a part of a group whose goal is to promote the betterment of the world through binding legislation.

We have yet to become hysterical!!! (howls at the moon)



Natural as to? Just because one joins an organization such as the WA does not automatically mean that that said nation wanted to submit all of its power and authority to the organization in question. Nations (such as mine) may have joined with the intention of trying to affect change and may not have joined to have their own rights and laws overruled.

While I am not arguing as to the rights of the WA to impose its laws on voluntary member nations, I was simply pointing out the uselessness of arguing the supremacy of national laws (as I myself have done in the past).



I was not disputing the ability of member nations to affect change in the law. I was simply pointing out the requirement of servitude to the WA in all such cases involving WA law when in conflict with national laws. Honored Ambassador.



Well in that case......I WANT MY MOMMY!!!!.....and national sovereignty!!!! (screams and cries)




This is all pointless hot air and bombast. No one is asking your nation to overturn all its laws or to divest itself of all sovereignty. Your sovereignty is gauranteed by your ability in last resort to leave the w.a. And yes of course it is natural to presume that if one joins a club with rules that one must abide by them.

No "requirement of servitude exists" , honoured Ambassador, and insisting that there is makes the honoured Ambassador seem comical at best.

yours e.t.c. ,

We have reluctantly voted for this resolution. We note that some delegates agree with us that no physical or mental interrogation means no interrogation. We also note they are happy with this. We note that a previous resolution has banned torture.

However we would support the repeal of this resolution so a new resolution could be passed that banned physical or mental torture but allowed questioning.

Yours

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

Erm...questioning is allowed,,,,

Really? I can't want national sovereignty and a chance at affecting the decisions of the world around me?


In all honesty honoured Ambassador this rather sterile and circular debate of yours has no real link with this official topic on the resolution at vote.

yours e.t.c. ,

Really? I can't want national sovereignty and a chance at affecting the decisions of the world around me?

You can want both, you just can't expect much sympathy when the decisions of the world around you affect you solely because you've chosen to let them.

In all honesty honoured Ambassador this rather sterile and circular debate of yours has no real link with this official topic on the resolution at vote.
yours e.t.c. ,



We refer the honoured Ambassador for Deus Ordo to our above quoted comments.


yours e.t.c. ,

O.O.C. I was politely and in character pointing out that you really might be threadjacking.

I wont engage on this subject with you again, in character or otherwise, because discourse with you is fruitless and you seem only to be able to dispute in the manner of moody teenager.

ciao. U.

I have noticed two things that I dislike. It does not permit any type of interrogation, and it does not permit the use of POWs as a manual labor force. If you look at it, it takes away the point of taking POWs and makes them merely a burden on the Nation holding them captive. Really it promotes not taking POWs, or to put it another way, it promotes killing every last one of the enemy so you don't have the burden of prisoners. The idea behind this is good, but it is going too far. Moderation is key in all things.

I have noticed two things that I dislike. It does not permit any type of interrogation, and it does not permit the use of POWs as a manual labor force. If you look at it, it takes away the point of taking POWs and makes them merely a burden on the Nation holding them captive. Really it promotes not taking POWs, or to put it another way, it promotes killing every last one of the enemy so you don't have the burden of prisoners. The idea behind this is good, but it is going too far. Moderation is key in all things.

There's nothing which says you have to take in PoWs. Just don't accept surrenders from soldiers.

Rest assured that that it is up to member nations themselves on whether they wish to allow MP3 players in PoW camps.

I will vote for.

To our noble friends of the World Assembly,

It has come to our attention that you have set your hands to the development of global standards in warfare and the care of prisoners of war. We find this effort worthy and most noble to our sentimentality. We wish to take issue with one particular point according to the proposal as issued in the international media outlets on this day.

In paragraph 5 subsection b, and pursuant to the prohibition to the marking of POWs denies the evident need to identify internee's in separation from combatant forces. Whereas such identifying marking should be prevalent but it should not be such to be demeaning or otherwise harmful. Furthermore, It is our belief that such persons are no longer combatants of belligerent nations and are in effect innocent persons being held for political necessity.

The similar marking of non-belligerent personnel is such a privilege that should be recognized for humanitarian and medical personnel that are often present in war torn areas of the world. We urge the World Assembly to make the following conditions evident in this proposal:

1. That all internee populations be well marked in such a way that is not demeaning or otherwise harmful.
2. That all collective internment centers be well marked such that it is visible to any belligerent force.
3. That all collective internment centers be separated from legitimate military facilities whereas an attack on the military facility can not be harmful to the integrity of or the well being of the internment facility.

By my hand for the Colony of Dahman,
Anattal Devan, Provisional Government of Dahman

I have just skipped all of the pages leading up to this one and it is probably too late to change anything. All i have to say is what good are pow's if you can't use them to help your war effort?

The government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the honoured and venerated delegacy of Cobdenia on successfully introducing an excellent statutory measure for the prevention of a particular form of inhumanity and mistreatment.


yours sincerely,

I have just skipped all of the pages leading up to this one and it is probably too late to change anything. All i have to say is what good are pow's if you can't use them to help your war effort?

Why on Earth would you put PoWs in a position to be able to sabotage your war efforts?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Why on Earth would you put PoWs in a position to be able to sabotage your war efforts?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Being told they have to work for food and shelter and not being told they're working to help you further conquer and decimate their nation might prevent them from knowing that they're helping destroy their nation.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

not being told they're working to help you further conquer and decimate their nation might prevent them from knowing that they're helping destroy their nation.
Uh-huh. When they're being told to make ammunition rounds or help manufacture tanks, I'm pretty sure they'll pick up on the fact that they're helping the enemy's war effort on their own.

Uh-huh. When they're being told to make ammunition rounds or help manufacture tanks, I'm pretty sure they'll pick up on the fact that they're helping the enemy's war effort on their own.

Any nation that's stupid enough to do that honestly deserves to have those tanks fall apart after one shot and the ammunition exploding in their faces. There's plenty of other work that PoWs could do that would help the war effort without being obvious about it.

Congratulations on getting this passed, sir, and by a nice big margin too!

Although my homeland is no longer actually a member of this Assembly, the High Council of Clans has instructed me to announce that -- in the unlikely event of our going to war with anybody -- we will comply voluntarily with this resolution's terms anyway.


Borrin o Redwood
Chief Observer at the World Assembly,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed