General Assembly: "Convention on Wartime Deceased"

Here is where we will debate the current General Assembly Resolution: "Convention on Wartime Deceased". This proposal is in the Moral Decency category, and it essentially outlaws abuse of corpses during 'wartime'. Furthermore, it encourages providing for the proper burial of 'war' casualties, when the occupying force is able.

A link to the Resolution can be found Here.

Also attached is a poll question which will serve to determine my Delegate's vote in the World Assembly.

With that, I will cede the floor to your arguments For / Against the current WA General Assembly Resolution: "Convention on Wartime Deceased".

How come when i follow your link i get the Universal Standard Time Act resolution

Serenel wrote:How come when i follow your link i get the Universal Standard Time Act resolution

Because I put the Thread up like 5 minutes early in the hopes that nobody would actually look at it until the new Resolution was up. I just didn't feel like waiting.


In any event, I think Convention on Wartime Deceased is pretty much a legit piece of legislation. The only real problem I have with it is regarding the strength of the legislation, itself. There is no requirement for the punishment of those who "desecrate" corpses under this legislation; however, they are 'condemned' whatever that may mean.

Either way this is a perfect piece of legislation for the WA: all bark and an eensy-weensy bite.

I vote 'For' this Resolution.

It has the bite of a six month old who when they gum your finger you just smile at them say "AHH arent you so precious" and then run their head."

also the resolution is essentially trying to legislate morality, and you can not legislative morality and it is stupid to even try.

so i dont really like it for those reasons, however i do like what the legislation is aiming to do, and what it is intended to do, so i voted for.

I think the WA is in place to loosely legislate things. Moreover they should promote more things than they actually mandate or prohibit. This is, however, certainly an international matter, and the WA should legislate on something like unnecessary brutality of corpses during wartime.

Another example of proposals for the sake of proposals. My WA voted against.

Against! This is total garbage... The WA needs to step up their game and propose things that matter

Anglenburgh wrote:Against! This is total garbage... The WA needs to step up their game and propose things that matter

So the mutilation of bodies in wartime isn't an important international matter to you??

I pose this question: What if, hypothetically, your mother was a red cross nurse, and she was taking care of US soldiers in the battlefield. Say also that said US soldiers were defeated in battle, and your mother's "protection" along with it. Say I raped and brutally tortured your mother, and took pictures of her naked, bleeding body and posted them on the web.

Still don't support legislation like this?

The practice of Total War is the reality we live in, I would be furious with you but even if this was passed in RL it would not stop malicious souls from doing it.

I suppose I should jsut continue to rape all your family members on the battlefield, and proceed to send you their body parts...

Anglenburgh wrote:The practice of Total War is the reality we live in, I would be furious with you but even if this was passed in RL it would not stop malicious souls from doing it.

Total war is a reality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to legislate the situation and prohibit horrific human rights abuses. I don't understand how someone like yourself, in the military, would not support something like this.

I guess we train our marines differently in the modern era...

I would assume that adherence to the Geneva Conventions was pretty much standard.

You are mistaken, I am not in the military.

Sorry I was mistaken, sir. You are Keith, correct? I am bad with names, but my point still stands.

This is a perfect matter for the WA to legislate. I don't see how anyone could implicitly support human rights abuses by NOT supporting this legislation.

Boggles my mind.

I dont think Anglenburgh is not supporting this issue because he dosnt support human rights, that it is a false dilema.

he could simply not be supporting this legislation because he finds it does not go far enough, and because he understands the notion of legislative bodies not being able to legislate morality of individuals. He may be in support of this legislation if it actually took a stand against such actions by giving the law some teeth to back it up with.

Well his exact quote was "the WA needs to propose things that matter"

This leads me to believe that he fundamentally does not agree with the legislation, rather than its ability to enforce the proposed law.

The WA's ability to "enforce" the law is not our concern. The WA 'gnomes' will enforce the laws if they are passed, that's just how the game works. Simple fact.

If he had said, "I don't think this legislation is strong enough to enforce the prohibitions and mandates it proposes", then I would be willing to accept that he was against the wording of the resolution. Since we have already seen that he does not agree with the legislation's intent, as shown by his comments, we can safely assume that his objections are fundamental in nature, as opposed to minor bits about the enforcement.

Implicit support of human rights abuses.

To say that you know someones intent in their wording is rather far fetched.

i read the same post he did, and what i took away from it was totally different then you.

i guess thats why interpretation is key.

when i read that he posted the WA should 'propose things that matter' i thought he was inditing the WA for not passing stuff that doesnt matter because it can not be enforced, just like this legislation can not be enforced, and even if it was 'enforced' nothing really happens to the nation, hence this legislation is meaningless, or 'does not matter'.

you could be right about his intents, but to a third party like myself it looks like you jumped the gun and assumed his intent...and we all know what happens when we assume. (we make a ass out of u and me)

Serenel wrote:To say that you know someones intent in their wording is rather far fetched.

i read the same post he did, and what i took away from it was totally different then you.

i guess thats why interpretation is key.

when i read that he posted the WA should 'propose things that matter' i thought he was inditing the WA for not passing stuff that doesnt matter because it can not be enforced, just like this legislation can not be enforced, and even if it was 'enforced' nothing really happens to the nation, hence this legislation is meaningless, or 'does not matter'.

you could be right about his intents, but to a third party like myself it looks like you jumped the gun and assumed his intent...and we all know what happens when we assume. (we make a ass out of u and me)

I wasn't reading into his post at all. I directly quoted him and took the denotative meanings of words.

I really don't want to fight with people, I am just trying to point out, albeit in an extreme fashion, that this legislation matters and is an INTERNATIONAL issue. Precisely the WA's function, to legislate meaningful international matters.

I do apologize, because for me it is techincally 'morning', so my bad typing is even worse, but i meant to say i read his post, just like you did, and we both took away two different meanings.

and while i know you are just trying to make a point, i think you took his post the wrong way, but i guess it is up to Angleburgh to tell us what he meant, but i just think he does care but the assembly is posting a resultion that doesnt matter because it doesnt do anything. That doesnt mean he doesnt think the issue at hand doesnt matter.

for instance i will use myself as an example, if i was in congress or something, and legislation trying to pass Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples was before me, i would not vote for it, because to me it would be appauling, setting up a circumstance of seperate but equal, and i may say something like this legislation does not matter meaning it wasnt good enough because i would only vote for legislation that gave Same-Sex couples the full rights to marriage, because that is the only thing that really does matter.

you see what i am trying to say? just because he isnt voting AYE on this resolution, does not mean he doesnt think the issue at hand is meaningless, it is two different things.

I apologize for importing my viewpoints onto someone else's arguments. I have sent an apology to Anglenburgh, I didn't mean to criticize his decision-making.

I hope we can continue this debate in a civil manner, I know that I will strive to truly 'listen' to people's arguments...

Well...i wasnt looking for an apology, i dont think you did anything wrong...well asking him to vizualize his mom being murdered and raped and then telling him you were going to send him body parts might have been a little over the top...but i understand you were trying to show him how you felt about the issue, which obviously means alot to you.

I was just trying to play 'mediator'/devils advocate because there are always two sides to every issue and we must respect the other side just as we would want that side to respect us.

I'll vote against this particular motion simply because I don't think that it will have any teeth. If you're angry enough at some country to invade them and kill their people, I very much doubt that a law like this will stop you from desecrating the bodies of your victims. Why not spend the time attempting to mediate disputes between nation states instead? If war breaks out, diplomacy has already failed, so a law like this is too little too late.

Jerksborough wrote:I'll vote against this particular motion simply because I don't think that it will have any teeth. If you're angry enough at some country to invade them and kill their people, I very much doubt that a law like this will stop you from desecrating the bodies of your victims. Why not spend the time attempting to mediate disputes between nation states instead? If war breaks out, diplomacy has already failed, so a law like this is too little too late.

I understand your questioning the 'enforcement' of this proposal, but the WA gnomes enforce all the laws that are passed. The enforcement is not for individual nations to debate. That's just how the 'game' works.

As to your point of mediating the debates, that is one of the intentions of the World Assembly. An alliance of nations exists to legislate 'international concerns', which this resolution does, and also exists to encourage diplomacy between nations.

In the event of war, I believe there should be existing legislation that dictates how the corpses of 'war casualties' must be treated. Case in point, the Geneva Conventions exist in the real-world to prevent torture, war crimes etc. This proposed legislation has a similar intent, and I fail to understand why people seem to be against it.

As I have already stated, the 'enforcement' is IRRELEVANT. The WA gnomes automatically enforce the laws enacted by the World Assembly, so I would argue that the main objection with this Resolution is rather unfounded. Just my opinion, though...

In that case, perhaps my problems with this law are somewhat unfounded. I didn't realize that nation states had no choice but to follow all laws that are enacted. I suppose that I must reluctantly rescind my previous decision, although I still feel that legislating morality is a flawed road to take. Not everybody's morals match up, and war is one of those times that differences in morality will be put to the test.

I understand that legislating morality is a tough road to go down, but I can assure you that is not the main priority of most in the World Assembly. This is merely an international morality concern. I would not support a WA proposal to say, prohibit public nudity in all nations, or something because that would be a concern that is easily governed by individual nations. This situation, however, should be legislated by the World Assembly because it involves the interaction, in this sense war, between different nations.

Jerksborough wrote:In that case, perhaps my problems with this law are somewhat unfounded. I didn't realize that nation states had no choice but to follow all laws that are enacted. I suppose that I must reluctantly rescind my previous decision, although I still feel that legislating morality is a flawed road to take. Not everybody's morals match up, and war is one of those times that differences in morality will be put to the test.

I do not expect you to, but if you feel so inclined to do so, then you can cancel your vote and re-cast. There is a little button underneath the vote display on the top of the page, but either way I will support your rationale and decision.