This situation is a nightmare all around, isn't it?
In the original:
Most of these are fine, good, positive things. Well most. So we're restricting putting prisoners in inhumane conditions, hooray! We're functionally banning solitary confinement, hooray! Although 3 still seems like the government could figure out a way to wiggle one in if they wanted to.
We're banning specific instances of capital punishment. This isn't as good as stating outright that capital punishment is banned, and the author of the target would not wish that to be so anyway, I suspect. Suppose banning specific instances it still productive but at the same time, the implications that a state forcing someone to die is ever okay leaves me a little sick. So, clauses 4 and 5 of the target, I genuinely just don't care about too much.
Six confuses me just as much now as it did at the time. Not sure what a circumstance would be where an extrajudicial execution would be permitted in the first place. If there is a circumstance outside the law where a murder would take place, pretty sure that's still a murder even if it's organised by your local sheriff.
7's great, hell yeah, ban that slave labour.
Aaaand with that the rest of the resolution is a hot dumpsterfire. It's just largely about setting up procedures for capital punishment and what that sort of thing could look like in the World Assembly nation of your choosing if the nation of your choosing thinks killing people is neato burritos. And because of that mess, I voted against it at the time. Still think it should be removed.
I agree, as I mentioned in the chat. The last time I remember a line like that being floated in a proposal, it got slapped down with the response "you can't promise such a thing". And, truly, I don't know how it's possible for it to stand. It's one thing to state (to no discernable benefit) that a proposal has been drafted to address issues, but it's another to say that it is the replacement resolution. Such a line is incredibly presumptive that it would pass. Maybe I was wrong, but I was under the impression that the absolute most you could do was toss in a line saying something to the effect of "Optimistic that a replacement will be pass in short order,". So it already rubs me the wrong way, and it comes across as blatantly corrupt that the replacement in question is done by the same author and has functionally no content at this time.
If the author is presenting this on the grounds of repeal and replace, why are we repealing this now, lightyears ahead of when a credible replacement would be ready? What's the delay in even adding the protections provided in the target resolution to the replacement? There's some gaps that I can see in the target, but oh my god the replacement draft right now
What the actual hell is that supposed to mean and why are we saying that prisoners of war can be treated like garbo but our own citizens can't. Strictly speaking, it's not even saying that, it's saying that we can treat our citizens inhumanely as long as prisoners of war are treated worse. Jesus Actual Christ.
There is a similar section in the target resolution, but I do stress similar and clarify that means that it just has some of the same words:
Saying a condition is mandated for a prisoner of war (perhaps they must be excluded from other citizens by law), is substantially different than saying the legal equivalent of saying "however bad you are technically allowed to treat someone is fine as long as non-war criminals are treated slightly better. The rest of the definition in the target is fine, and those are all the parts that have been excluded from the replacement. The replacement has also yet to ban the practice of forced prison (slave) labour.
But the author is apparently ready enough with the replacement that they have chosen to advertise it in this repeal?
This is not how a repeal and replace works. I agree with the assessment that, at this time, this repeal does substantially more harm than good - especially if the replacement were allowed to pass.