Essay on Geneva Convention

World war 2 was fought in many countries around the world between 1939 to 1945. Throughout these years there were many issues that had arisen. During world war 2 the Japanese had captured Australian soldiers which had surrendered as prisoners of war, which to the japanese was dishonorable and thought to be unworthy of any respect due to their cultural ideologies and their complex behaviour of their indoctrinated set beliefs made for punishable treatment towards the prisoner of war. Within this argumentative essay it will outline, the laws under the geneva convention signed by the japanese in 1929 had stated the humane treatment of prisoners in which japan did not sanction (follow), the japanese had found that because the australian prisoners

Another excruciating obstacle that prisoners sometimes faced was torture. Torture was against the Geneva Accords, but then again, so were many other acts that the NVA and Vietcong (VC) committed against American POWs. Torture sometimes only consisted of a few blows with a bamboo stick, to an all out beating until the prisoner was unconscious, to sometimes even worse acts of violence.

The Geneva Convention and its participants keep all prisoners of war on a uniformed playing field, to prevent

Throughout, 1945 to 1946, the International Military Tribunal, or IMT, for short, tried 22 major war criminals on the charges of crimes against peace and conspiracy. They defined these crimes that the defendants committed as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds.” They all got their respective sentences in prison starting from 10 to 20 years in prison to execution.

One of those former prisoners of war being World War II veteran, Bob Nobels. "See we were good for three days, we had ammunition, food everything

In the years following World War one the worlds nations signed the Geneva accords, limiting the mistreatment to surrendered enemy combatants. The convention outlawed inhumane treatment and allowed the soldiers to write back home. Though the world new somewhat of the camps, some nonprofit organizations tried to help by sending relief packages, which were more than not stolen by the

"I asked several people, several times, where I could find a copy of the standard operating procedures, or even rules and regulations,’ says Frederick. ‘And nobody would ever provide me with any or let me know where they were. The only thing they would do is just give me a pat on the back and say everything will be all right" (60 Minutes, Abuse at Abu Ghraib) This is Sergeant Chip Frederick, one of the soldiers that has been convicted of conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and indecent acts. He served 8 years in military prison, in Washington D.C. Even though Sgt. Frederick plead guilty, he claimed that no one involved in the scandal was properly trained, and did not know the standard Geneva Conventions. “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my

Stevens’ states evidence that for someone to allow any human to live in ‘solitary confinement for up twenty-two or twenty three hours a day and restrict their access to others is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention

Matthew Lippman provides that the Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in Vietnam War and if the higher US officials managed to cover-up the other massacres. The trials for the crimes committed in My Lai were held separately from the Nuremberg trails because officials wanted to avoid creating parallels between the two events. However, parallels can be drawn with American conduct in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Troops who were in violation of international law and committed war crimes in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not held accountable for their action to their full extent. In fact, those who were convicted were not necessarily charged with war crimes. This leads us to question whether the events of my Lai and Nuremberg could ever be reconciled. Allan Ryan makes the argument that the Nuremberg Tribunals was the most significant development of international human rights law. I agree with Ryan as many tribunals following the events of World War II have been modeled after the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, this is true in

the Armed Forces are entitled to POW status if they meet the criteria specified in the treaty.

No one is more vulnerable during wartime than prisoners of war (POW 's). They are at the mercy of an enemy who they had been trying to kill and defeat up until the moment of their capture. During previous wars, this rather precarious situation was handled with a certain amount of professionalism and dignity on the part of captors. The two world wars in Europe are cases in which POW 's were given a fair amount of food, clothing, and the ability to write and receive letters in most cases. However, the war in the Pacific involving the United States and the Japanese involved a great deal of abuse and substandard treatment of POW 's resulting in a death rate of about 40% compared to only 1% in the European theater. The Soviet Union also did

In the United States legal system, torture is currently defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” as defined by Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (US Code, 1) Though this is a seemingly black and white definition, the conditional “…other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions…” have led many to question what precisely this entails. In other words, what are the lawful sanctions that permit such acts? Are they ethically right? Where is the line drawn as torture

Another aspect of Guantanamo that received a strong reaction was the access that interrogators, psychologists, and psychiatrists working at Guantanamo have to detainees’ medical files. This allows them to target detainees individually, and is against medical ethics stated in the Geneva Conventions. Though this protocol has not been sanctioned by the

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

In order to answer this question of rights in captivity, leaders must assess the situation through the lens of an overarching value and a criterion, or means to achieve the value. Executive Order 10631 lays out the duties and responsibilities of US service members in captivity. According to Article III, it is the responsibility of the captured to “continue to resist by all means necessary” (Executive Order No. 10631, 1955). We thus accept this responsibility as the mission of the POW, and ultimately, the value under which we will assess this ethical dilemma.