We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: POW Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2135
Description[?]:
| A discussion on the treatment of prisoners of war. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.
Old value:: Prisoners of war are treated according to the national laws of the captor power.
Current: Prisoners of war may be mistreated without legal sanction.
Proposed: Prisoners of war are immediately returned to their own government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:29:38, November 01, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the POW Act |
| Message | OOC: This has been around for a while but Ive just realised we're one of 9 nations with the current value, so its probably time to move toward a more internationally acceptable law. Alternatives: *Prisoners of war are immediately returned to their own government. *Prisoners of war must be treated well, according to internationally-accepted standards. *Prisoners of war are treated according to the national laws of the captor power. *Prisoners of war may be mistreated without legal sanction. *Prisoners of war are enslaved. *Surrendering enemy combatants are summarily executed. IC: If Baltusia does one day go to war (and it will be a cold day in hell when I allow that to happen), I see no reason why we should waste money on keeping POWs who serve no use except for tieing up resources that could be used elsewhere. Additionally, this change of law will be a step toward a more internationally acceptable policy. |
| Date | 01:03:37, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the POW Act |
| Message | I guess there are no issues with it then. |
| Date | 14:35:18, November 02, 2005 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the POW Act |
| Message | Thought I had responded to this...apparently not. I oppose this utterly. POWs should be kept by our government until the end of a conflict. |
| Date | 16:54:47, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the POW Act |
| Message | The only reason for keeping POWs is to use them as bargaining chips - it is unacceptable to do that with human lives. |
| Date | 00:07:52, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the POW Act |
| Message | So why did you vote against DS? |
| Date | 01:06:51, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the POW Act |
| Message | ..... Because the two buttons are too close together? (OOC: Whoops... did actually mean to vote in accordance with stated reasoning) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 235 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 231 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." H. L. Mencken |