Looking further into this document, we will look at how member states who have signed this treaty are obliged to treat prisoners of war. How this treaty is enforced and the effectiveness of the enforcement as well as how this treaty has been upheld and looked at over the decades that it has been in effect will be analyzed. Failings by some countries in upholding the principles of this treaty will be discussed as well. The third Geneva Convention very specifically lists how you must treat Prisoners of War. This convention first broadened who actually were POWs according to Geneva Conventions I and II. Citizens who are interred were now given the same rights and rules regarding their treatment as military POWs. Weather “interned in this country; …show more content…
“Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces; Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;(c) That of carrying arms openly;(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war; Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power; Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model; Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the …show more content…
We did not classify them as POWs though, but as ‘unlawful enemy combatant’. This was a term that President George W. Bush’s legal team came up with, so he did not have to give them rights, as stated under this treaty. We used this term, but it essentially was a play of words, to not having to give them POW status. We argued that they did not have the rights of POWs, or that we had to treat them accordingly. Torture, humiliating and degrading treatment, starvation, sleep deprivation and the lack of basic liberties was something that the U.S. did to these POWs on a regular basis. No senior official was ever indicted or brought before a tribunal on these issues. Some lower staff did indeed get prosecuted, but essentially, anyone of real authority escaped this travesty of
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba houses some of the most dangerous people. The people being held have ranged in committing various crimes. What makes Guantanamo Bay well known is how the time period a detainee has spent in prison without a trial. While in prison for an extensive period of time, a detainee is bound to receive discipline for not following the guards. There are often a variety of different methods that the guards use to teach discipline to the detainees. All who follow Guantanamo Bay as institution often criticizes the measures taken. What makes Guantanamo Bay an ironic place to start this journey is because Guantanamo Bay is at the center of attention to a very important, controversial law passed in 2006. The controversial law was
POWs captured in Afghanistan and held at camp X-ray is in violation of the Geneva
This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.
There is a fine line between taking the enemy captive as part of war and torturing them. I believe that during war it is inevitable that people are going to be held captive as part of war, but there is some sort of humanity that needs to be upheld at the end of the day. There are many international treaties such as the Geneva Convention that many nations are a part of. The idea behind the convention is to make sure that all of the nations are on board with one another on how they are going to treat people. The problem is that most other nations besides the United States have a different mindset of how they operate and how they believe people should be treated in situations of war or high profile people. Most people would like to live in the United States because of all of the rights everyone has here in the country.
The torture of captured suspects is contrarian to the values of the American legal system because generally captured suspects are supposed to entitled to due process, according to Amendment V of the United States Constitution: “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Guantanamo Bay”. Terrorist which are held captive by the American government are presumed guilty but are not being given a fair chance to seek representation in a court of law or have fall range access to their attorneys once they find themselves in a conflict. In my opinion, terrorists should have the opportunity to have their cases reviewed and be given a fighting chance instead of being held for an indefinite amount of time without due process or trial. The U.S
Complying with International human rights standards is an easy way of obtaining international support to win this war. It is also the required standard of behavior for any human being.
Roughly 70,000 of the Japanese that had been displaced and relocated to theses camps were Americans citizens. There were never charges brought against them but they were not able to petition their incarceration. While incarcerated they lost their homes and all of their property. They tried to argue that this was unconstitutional to the government but the Supreme Court upheld their decision.
Prisoners of War are individuals, whether a soldier or civilians, who are captured as a prisoner during an armed conflict. In the middle ages the modern law was the source relating to the treatment of Prisoners of War. However, today the modern foundation of international law relating to the Treatment of Prisoners is the 1949 Geneva Convention.
In World War Two the Japanese army was dominating large portions of the Pacific islands and Asian countries. When the Japanese were conquering these islands they imprisoned thousands of Australian soldiers. The Japanese had numerous prisoner of war camps or P.O.W camps throughout the course of World War II. Within these camps prisoners were beaten, deprived of food and basic sanitation, which resulted in many deaths. This treatment of P.O.W’s didn’t cooperate with the Geneva conventions, which they had promised to institute into their army code of conduct before the war. This resulted in the allied armies attacking the war camps and liberating the prisoners in 1945. After the war the Japanese were put on trial for their crimes. The Japanese
This is the reason why I picked Guantanamo bay as the topic for my research paper on human rights violation. I hope to raise awareness to not only my peers but to possibly the global
Well, prisoners weren’t treated very well. Prisoners of war were not criminals’ they didn’t do anything wrong they were just defending they’re country. Of course this was an offense to the enemy. Their own countries because of desertion have executed more than 400 soldiers. Desertion is a huge problem that many countries face during wartime. An example: a young man is forced to leave his home with all of his
One figure of prisoner of war captures in Iraq by the US and UK forces are more than 5,300, and many still being captured today (Kelley). The treatment of these prisoners should follow strict guidelines of the proper treatment of the prison war. Many problems have occurred with the mistreatment of prisoners, especially in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Here is one account: “According to the U.S. Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.” (Abuse of Iraqi POWs by GIs Probed).
The term ‘prisoner of war’ has traditionally been used to describe persons captured or interned by an opposing force during conflict. They have been afforded varying degrees of treatment and since 1949 have been attributed various rights as specified in the Third Geneva Convention, specifically Article 13, the Humane Treatment of Prisoners of War. This paper will explore Article 13 in terms of its moral and strategic dimensions. It will investigate how Article 13 relates to other articles of the Geneva Conventions, and examine the implied terms of the article and additional protections afforded to prisoners of war.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is originally a naval base that was once used to house detention facilities for Haitian and Cuban refugees fleeing to the United States. It was also used as a refueling station for Navy ships. It was then converted into a high level detention facility to house enemy troops captured in the War on Terror campaign by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield. It has three main camps that house the prisoners. These prisoners of war were later referred to as enemy combatants. They were excluded from the prisoner of war statutes of the Geneva Convention because of their involvement in a foreign terrorist organization and therefore earning themselves the title of terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center served as the perfect location to send these terrorists. It allowed the United States to strip them of any due process or protection that is provided by US law. Due to its location, being in foreign territory they are only subjected to military law. They are close enough for them to be monitored without interference of intentional agencies or international oversight. Furthermore, the US Government is holding these men without due process because they are deemed too dangerous to be released into the public because of their associations with terrorist organizations and possession of valuable information relating to National Security such as location of key members of a terrorist groups, whereabouts. However, the United States cannot release those
In 1949 the second Geneva Conventions were composed as a response to World War II, and the Holocaust, which caused mass extermination and detention of civilians. The convention was erected in order to prevent future harm to civilians and act as a form of protection during times of armed conflict by outlining the norms of conduct for countries during war time. According to the Geneva Conventions all forms of torture and cruel and degrading treatment that cause severe pain and/or physical and mental suffering are illegal under international law. Additionally, states must act to ensure that any form of torture not previously mentioned or defined that causes humiliation, inhumane treatment, degradation, or punishment is not committed against the detainees. In order to safeguard the ideals of the conventions, it is required that all military personnel be educated in the laws enacted. In the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Bagram, the chain of command began to fail as requests for treatment