Wolfish Convention on POW
|
Contents
History of the Resolution
Wolfish based his proposal very loosely on the RL Geneva Convention, but for obvious reasons had to shorten it substantially to fit both NS space and the expectations of reading patience on the forums. The proposal was apparently submitted without a pre-comment period. As with so many proposals, debate on this issue was light and largely positive. Only after the proposal had reached quorum did signs of opposition appear.
A sampling:
Seeking Approval
- Smashandgrab
- Smashandgrab finds your proposal to be unacceptable. Without narrowly defining what constitutes ill treatment, torture, mental and physical abuse your proposal can be interpreted to apply to situations that are vital for national security; chiefly the interrogation of prisoners of war.
- Wolfish
Like most laws - this resolution is not designed to spell out specific scenarios - laws cannot stand the test of time with such specific definitions written into them. The United Nations, a sub committee, or an international court would hear a case and decide on the merits of that case.
As an example - assault laws do not spell out: assault with a baseball bat, assault by spitting, assault by candlestick...the law would be several books long.
The best way to ensure a law stands the test of time is to limit "loopholes" by keeping it broad, and open to just the right amount of latitude for the court or governing body.
- Walmington on Sea
- Though not a member of the United Nations, Walmington on Sea is likely to look upon this resolution as a guideline for behaviour in the global conflict we currently find ourselves a part of.
- There is some debate over Article 9, however, though most of the counter-arguments are somewhat pedantic and probably unimportant, Parliament wishes them at least put forward none the less.
- Article 9 Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.
- We have recently been made frighteningly aware that at least two of the nations aligned against us in our struggle may be capable of attacking -by air and sea- targets anywhere on our little island. We trust that Walmington would not be held responsible if, for example, German terror weapons should fall on any POW camps situated in our countryside?
- Further, is it worth considering that, should Walmington's soil be directly visited by the might of the Wehrmacht or related powers, it may be simply beyond our means to evacuate POWs ahead of our possible retreat? The speed of the German push into France made it evident that, had significant POW camps existed, they may well have over night found themselves on the front-line.
- The prominent belief is that the provision "Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone" would come back into effect in the event of such a catastrophic collapse?
- Wolfish
I do understand your concern. Certainly in modern warfare - in the age of ICBMs - there is no area beyond the reach of an aggressor. The article under debate however is there to ensure that Prisoners of War are not left in an area where they may be unintentionally targeted by enemy action - rather they are taken to a designated area away from combatants. In this way, should a POW camp be hit by fire - it is likely they were deliberately targeted as opposed to being unintentional targets.
At Vote
I voted no, because I think this resolution encourages battlefield executions. Think for a minute: why would I capture someone, who's probably going to give me trouble anyway, if I have to feed, clothe and house him, and I can't grill him for information? What's the point of taking prisoners then? I'd just kill them on the spot.
"I never saw no white flag..."
- I voted yes. My nation does, at present, treat prisoners with the care suggested in the resolution. I think it is only right that other nations - if they wish to remain in the UN - treat their prisoners this way also. It's the right thing to do.
With all due respect I will also be voting against this proposal. I believe it holds democracies to a false standard that their opponents will ignore or flaunt at will, while we will be expected to observe them to our extra cost.
While its intentions are admirable, I will not submit Fort Maine to any more disadvantages in attempting to deal with the totalitarians and theocrats I am in the midst of.
Post Vote
Discussion continued even after passage in The Wolfish POW proposition...is not right. There were many OOC comments comparing RL events with the Wolfish version, peppered with the "All war is wrong!" comments that were routinely ignored.
Wolfish followed his Geneva proposal with the ambitious Wolfish Convention - Land War, based on the Hague Conventions from the League of Nations. The first submission was submitted with only forum support, due to resistance from the telegraphy campaign of POW. It failed to achieve quorum, and does not appear to have been re-offered.
Text of the Resolution
| Category: | Human Rights | Strength: | Significant | Proposed By: | Wolfish |
|---|
Wolfish Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Article 2
The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of occupation, even if the occupation meets with no armed resistance.
The present Convention shall apply to the prisoners from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Article 3
The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which impartial humanitarian organization may undertake for the protection of prisoners of war and for their relief.
Article 4
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Article 5
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
Article 6
The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.
Article 7
Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.
Article 8
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.
Article 9
Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.
- Votes For: 9,735
- Votes Against: 2,235
- Implemented: Wed Sep 17 2003
Additional Information
See also: War, United Nations
