The Pros And Cons Of Prisoners Of War

The Third Geneva Convention is probably the most recognized and important treaty concerning prisoners of war to ever be put down on paper that is recognized by the world over. Though this treaty is very thorough and complete in its wording regarding those that are affected and bound by its wording, there still is one major defect in the treaty that needs to be rectified and dealt with. This flaw is that there is no independent court body or commission that oversees abuses by parties against others in regards to their mistreatment or torture. Persons who find themselves at the hands of captors only have international courts or commissions as well as domestic courts to hear their cases. This can cause an untimely delay in hearing these cases,

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

At Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a group of expert defense attorneys who represented an accused terrorist facing the death penalty quit the case due to the intrusive monitoring of their client. Their defendant, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, is allegedly responsible for the bombing of the US destroyer Cole back in 2000. The man who is now defending him is 35 year old Navy Lieutenant Alaric Piette, who quit his job as a SEAL to become a lawyer. However, the problem arises due to the fact that he graduated from Georgetown University in 2012, leaving him with only six years of experience, along with never having participated in a capital case such as this one. Because of this, many people, including himself, believe that Lieutenant Piette is not qualified to take on a case of this magnitude (Philipps,

Geneva Conventions are rules laid down by various member nations that are applied in times of armed conflict. The Geneva convention seeks to protect people the sick, civilians, the wounded, and prisoners of war. USA is a member nation of the Geneva Conventions, having signed the 1977 protocols. Under the Geneva Conventions, the torture and abuse of prisoners is barred. Waterboarding is a torture technique used on prisoners, hence, it is also

Prisoners of War (POWs): In international law, term used to designate incarcerated members of the armed forces of an enemy, or noncombatants who render them direct service and who have been captured during wartime.1

Torture is prohibited under United States and international law. The United State’s widespread use of torture in the Vietnam war was in direct violation of many pieces of jurisdiction. This was one large factor of the United State’s illegality in the Vietnam

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

Most Americans who have been detainees of war are customary individuals who have been put in phenomenal circumstances by no arranging of their own. Americans have been held hostage as detainees of war amid numerous wars and in numerous spots. Still, there is a typical bond that is shared by all. Their story is a motivating part of our history as a country.

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.

The My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib torture prison were both tragic events in history that Americans were involved in. The My Lai massacre took place during the Vietnam war in 1968. Lieutenant William Calley ordered the Charlie Company to proceed with the attack on the village of My Lai. Their goal was to exterminate the Viet Cong combatants and any one who stood in their way, but they ended up killing hundreds of innocent unarmed civilians instead. The Abu Ghraib torture and prison was an american military run prison that was active during the Iraqi war in 2003 until 2006. They captured Iraqi soldiers and tortured them in extremely inhumane and unimaginable ways. These horrific occurrences made an impact on a countless amount of communities and people’s lives around the world whether they had connections to the incidents or not, which is why this issue is such an important matter to discuss. The concepts that will be discussed in this essay are the similarities between the events of the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib prison, the major difference between the two, considering who was truly responsible for the events at the Abu Ghraib prison, discussing whether or not the lessons of My Lai were learnt, and the steps to take to insure nothing alike these events would ever take place in the world again.

The reason why the MIA/POW topic was so dangerous after the end of the war was the idea and hope to many Americans that the soldiers who were shot down over North Vietnam and labeled as missing during the war may be in a prison camp somewhere in the country (Herring, 370). While soldiers who were shot down or remains were not accounted for were automatically labeled as Missing in Action, this gave hopes to the soldier’s families that they could be alive causing the issue to become controversial and emotionally charged. Though the POWs were released in 1973, the government helped to heighten this troublesome issue after the war by making comments like “the total accounting is not possible,” by the House Select Committee or Reagan who said, “the return of all POWs is the nation’s highest priority” (Appy. 244). With These suggestions by the government spurred this controversial topic on by the American public. While Vietnam’s government advocated that they had released all prisoners, Regan continued to suggest there could still be many MIAs that were still alive. While this initiated the public’s efforts for the government to take action, many felt that if Vietnam was covering the POW issue up, that this would bring a negative view towards the country (Rosenthal, The Myth of the Lost POWs).

Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation ... who would otherwise be incarcerated.”

There had been more than 500 identified American Prisoners of War held by the North Vietnamese. Several reports indicated the North Vietnamese Army tortured prisoners and kept them in terrible conditions. As a result, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Earle G. Wheeler authorized the creation of a working group in order to address the issue.

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 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state