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: The Prisoners of War
Details
Submitted by[?]: International Justice
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 2278
Description[?]:
| During times of war, any enemy soldiers that have surrendered will be labeled as a Prisoner of War until the war has officially ended, while they are under that status they must be treated in compliance of any related International Laws. When a war has officially ended this government would send all the prisoners back to their home country, or they may receive refugee status if it is believed that they will be treated harshly in their home country. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.
Old value:: Prisoners of war are immediately returned to their own government.
Current: Prisoners of war may be mistreated without legal sanction.
Proposed: Prisoners of war must be treated well, according to internationally-accepted standards.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:30:12, August 29, 2006 CET | From | International Justice | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | It makes little sense to simply hand back prisoners of war to the enemy side, to allow them to reuse their captured soldiers while they execute our prisoners. I don't suggest anything so radical as to allow prisoner execution but I strongly believe in holding onto the prisoners until the war has actually finished. It is common sense, you don't hand the gun back to a murderer when he failed to kill you the first time. Feel free to add suggestions though. |
| Date | 07:58:42, August 30, 2006 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | "It makes little sense to simply hand back prisoners of war to the enemy side" It doesnt, unless you look at things in a rational and, above all, financial manner. "to allow them to reuse their captured soldiers while they execute our prisoners." Two things: 1. To "reuse" a soldier would require the foreign government to expend resources that they would otherwise use for something else. 2. What foreign government is executing our prisoners? Don't make bullshit up to make your argument more dramatic. "I don't suggest anything so radical as to allow prisoner execution but I strongly believe in holding onto the prisoners until the war has actually finished" For what reason? It would cost us @30 000 annually to keep a POW at acceptable standards and in a big war, there could be thousands, if not millions, of them, meaning we would probably end up spending more on POWs than on actual military resources. This doesn't even include the manpower we have to take away from the frontline to guard the POWs. Isn't it just easier to spalsh out on a few million Aureus of oil and send them home on a very slow barge? "It is common sense, you don't hand the gun back to a murderer when he failed to kill you the first time." These aren't murderers we're dealing with. Enemy troops are not foaming at the mouth, raving, psychotic lunatics. They're just like our kids enlisted in the military but with a funny accent or a weird name. If we were discussing the actual military leaders of the enemy, then I may actually agree with you but, at the moment, you're just being a bunch of heartless bastards. In conclusion, what you're suggesting is that people who are no more guilty of a crime than our children who we've sent to fight them should be locked up? You mean, we should expend millions and millions annually to pay for their upkeep when it would be simpler and less expensive to simply send them home? And we should give up the moral high ground and probably international support we could have by magnanimously giving up the POWs as a sign of good will? This, sir, is why you will not be allowed near the foreign ministry. |
| Date | 11:04:36, August 30, 2006 CET | From | International Justice | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | Sure, it will cost us to keep POWs but in our point of view, that's the lesser of two evils. We could either look after a few soldiers for a while or we could risk having them take over our lands. And then we would like to point out that there's nothing stopping enemy nations from using them again, they already are enlisted when they arrive back home and the government wouldn't need to spend money on training them as new recruits. "If we were discussing the actual military leaders of the enemy, then I may actually agree with you but, at the moment, you're just being a bunch of heartless bastards." In case you didn't notice, we were discussing actual military leaders. Read over what was said, we didn't refer to murderers being handed back to a murderer, we referred to weapons being handed back to a murderer. So to put it simply, the murderer is the nation, and the weapon (the gun) is the army. We never said that they are to be treated like criminals. They are prisoners of war, not common criminals. A common criminal will spend his or her time behind bars until their sentence has finished. A POW on the other hand is held in our nation's POW camps until the war is over, unlike murderers they aren't given life sentences and despite that fact that several of them would have killed our soldiers, yet they will be released when the war is over because all they were doing was their duty. We couldn't have expected them to do any less then try to kill a few of our soldiers, and they can expect to be held in a POW camp if they are captured. It's a risk all soldiers should know and understand before stepping foot on the battle field. Further more, we would like to point out that we are the only nation that actually lets POW's return after being captured; in a serious war this could be the one thing that tips the scales of war to the enemy's favour. While they hold ours we would be returning their soldiers, it's almost as if we are encouraging other nations to attack. And on a final note, we entered this proposal hoping to get opinion on the matter, not insults. If you were offering constructive criticism on the matter at hand then we may consider them, however insults would not convince us to change our opinion. |
| Date | 15:15:58, August 30, 2006 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | If you look into Baltusian history the arguments dont get to much better however you have our support on this matter. |
| Date | 20:44:23, August 30, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | I support this motion too |
| Date | 10:21:06, August 31, 2006 CET | From | International Justice | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | In that case, we will proceed to vote. |
| Date | 10:38:09, August 31, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | "Sure, it will cost us to keep POWs but in our point of view, that's the lesser of two evils. We could either look after a few soldiers for a while or we could risk having them take over our lands." So if we hold a few (Ha! More like a few thousdand) soldiers on our own territory and they manage a breakout, they won't run riot and cause trouble? They won't require more military resources guarding them than would actually be used defending against them on a battlefield? I sincerely doubt it. And I doubt you've actually quantified the amount of money saved. 50 000 POWs is a fairly conservative number. To keep them at acceptable standards would cost @1.5 billion (@30 000 per POW, around the GDP per capita of Baltusia) annually. That's 2.5% of our military budget. If our armed forces have approximately 500 000 serving (which is fairly reasonable), the money spent on guarding POWs is equivalent to 9000 service personnel. If you want to look at large figures in a bigass war (one which you would probably be happy to wage), 1 million POWs at @30 000 annually costs us @30 billion or HALF our defence budget which probably means tax hikes which will, more or less inevitably, lead to some sort of recession or, worse, bakruptcy. If you want to take our nation down that road, so be it but I'll be right behind you saying "I told you so" as we head down the road to hell. "And then we would like to point out that there's nothing stopping enemy nations from using them again," No there isn't. Who said there was? Why do you try to put words into other people's mouths? Are you some sort of fascist, telling everyone what to think? "they already are enlisted when they arrive back home and the government wouldn't need to spend money on training them as new recruits." No but they would need to expend resources taking them back to the field of battle. "Further more, we would like to point out that we are the only nation that actually lets POW's return after being captured; in a serious war this could be the one thing that tips the scales of war to the enemy's favour." Two things: 1. You seem to be rather hell-bent on waging war on some other nation. Why is this? I feel it will probably prevent you from gaining access to the foreign or defence ministries, thus making any problems you have with the system completely irrelevant. 2. Nations change their laws from time to time, in case you didn't know. At some times, there have been a good eight or so nations with similar laws to ours. Currently, there is only one. Besides, since when is what the majority does necessarily good? If every other nation jumped off a cliff, would you have Baltusia do the same? "And on a final note, we entered this proposal hoping to get opinion on the matter, not insults. If you were offering constructive criticism on the matter at hand then we may consider them, however insults would not convince us to change our opinion." So? No one ever changes their opinion. If you feel insulted, that's your problem. I'll continue to exercise my right to free speech while I have it before you fascists get into power and eliminate it. And you haven't retored to my insults, so that means by extension that you agree that your party is indeed the epitome of heartless bastardry. |
| Date | 14:57:54, August 31, 2006 CET | From | International Justice | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | "1. You seem to be rather hell-bent on waging war on some other nation. Why is this? I feel it will probably prevent you from gaining access to the foreign or defence ministries, thus making any problems you have with the system completely irrelevant." We'll begin with this one, as it seemed the most propostrous. When one speaks of a law relating to war, one should be expected to mention war a few times, especially for a piece of legislation that is specifically about Prisoners of War. If you must know, our intentions for this bill is to help our defencive ability, not our offensive ability. "So if we hold a few (Ha! More like a few thousdand) soldiers on our own territory and they manage a breakout, they won't run riot and cause trouble? They won't require more military resources guarding them than would actually be used defending against them on a battlefield? I sincerely doubt it." A few thousand? You just proved our point, I said a few (which could have been any number based on opinion), you said a "few" thousand (or few thousdand to be exact)...that's still a few. Soldiers that escape would most likely be without weapons, with the soldier's main intentions to get back to their lines, they would most likely be running from us instead of causing "riots". And I doubt we would need to divert a large portion of the army to capture a few soldiers trying to escape back to their own side. Soldiers that are currently not doing anything and the police force should make it their duty to capture fugitive POW's. "No there isn't. Who said there was? Why do you try to put words into other people's mouths? Are you some sort of fascist, telling everyone what to think?" I was simply trying to prove a point before I moved on to my next argument. Plus it was implied when you mentioned the resources expended to take the soldiers back to the battle field, resources that would be less than having to train new recruits and then taking them to the battle field. |
| Date | 01:09:54, September 01, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | "A few thousand? You just proved our point, I said a few (which could have been any number based on opinion), you said a "few" thousand (or few thousdand to be exact)...that's still a few." And I went on to estimate that a large war would atke a million POWs. Read on before you comment. Also, please form a coherent response to the financial issue. It seems like you're just ignoring it because its inconvenient. My cost analysis also fails to factor in the fact that with a MILLION extra people in the nation, our food, water and energy resources will be stretched quite tightly. In the past, large POW populations have only been maintained by keeping the prisoners in sub-standard conditions. How exactly will you explain to the population that THEIR food, THEIR water, THEIR electricity, THEIR tax aureus is being used to feed, clothe and house the enemy? "Soldiers that escape would most likely be without weapons, with the soldier's main intentions to get back to their lines, they would most likely be running from us instead of causing "riots"." How could you possibly know this for sure? Any sufficiently large number of soldiers under any sufficiently well organised command could easily outweigh (weapons or no) any meagre forces we may have guarding them. And do you really wish to suggest that even a retreating force would do no damage on its way out? That they would politely exit the nation without causing any trouble, especially since they would not want to hurt their oh-so kind imprisoners? "And I doubt we would need to divert a large portion of the army to capture a few soldiers trying to escape back to their own side. Soldiers that are currently not doing anything and the police force should make it their duty to capture fugitive POW's." Then what is the point of keeping POWs if you're not going to try very hard to imprison them and you're going to allow them to make it back to their own lines? What is the point in allowing a large breakout to succeed exactly? To give hope to the other POWs in that they too may make an escape? And to suggest that there will be actual active servicepersonnel not doing anything (like being on the frontline or guarding the massive POW population) is really stupid on your behalf. If you're so concerned with us losing the hypothetical war, why are there soldiers sitting around doing nothing? |
| Date | 01:23:17, September 01, 2006 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the The Prisoners of War |
| Message | We seem to have found a match for the OP in the long winded discussion portion of Baltusian politics |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 315 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 145 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It usually takes up to an hour for election results to generate. During this time, the "Next Election" date is put forward a month, which is confusing. Do not worry! In a short time, the election result will generate and the "Next Election" date will then correct itself. |
| Random quote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." - Edward Dowling |