Iraqi Prisoners of War (pows)

Recent photographs of Iraqi Prisoners Of War (POWs) being humiliated and abused by United States armed forces have caused uproar and disgust throughout the world. The sole purpose of any war is to win; either through destroying the enemy, or the achieving a specific goal. Why then should coalition forces be held to a higher standard in regard to treatment of POWs than the rest of the world? To fully explore this question we must understand the history of POWs, and the role that the United States plays in world affairs.

During the 1991 Gulf War, pictures of American pilots beaten and bleeding were shown to the world. Civilized nations were outraged. As Major Rhonda Cornum told of being molested, Colonel Jeff Tice told of being electrocuted, and other American and British pilots read scripted statements on television (PBS), civilized nations were appalled. Throughout the years, prisoners have been interrogated and mistreated by their captors. Vietnamese soldiers housed prisoners in substandard shelter or even pits throughout their country. The most famous POW camp was known as the "Hanoi Hilton". Here, POWs where beaten, tortured and humiliated for years. Brainwashing techniques were perfected by North Korea during The Korean Conflict. World War I POWs were forced into labor camps or systematically murdered through "death marches" where guards would force prisoners to march until they died from exhaustion in an effort to reduce the number of prisoners in the camps. World War II POWs were killed, or used for medical experiments. The United Sates Department of Defense recognizes table below outlines the prominent type of torture administered during each of the official US Wars (DoD, 47). After the wars ended, and it was discovered just how badly the POWs were treated, civilized nations convinced themselves that torture and abuse were the acts of uncivilized nations ruled by madmen.

Principal Wars in which the US Participated

Official War Torture technique

Revolutionary War Murder, destruction of property

War of 1812 Rape, theft, Arson

Indian Wars Scalping, murder, rape

Mexican War Murder

Civil War Hanging, destruction of property

Spanish-American War providing only saltwater to drink-causing dehydration and hallucinations

World War I Sleep deprivation, murder

World War II (sexual) enslavement, medical experiments, death marches

Korean War re-education, Bataan Death March, physical torture

Vietnam War cutting off various body parts to get other prisoners to talk, Sleep deprivation, bamboo under fingernails

Gulf War-1991 Electrocution, humiliation, beatings, Sleep deprivation

Gulf War-2003 Religious and sexual abuse, humiliation, beatings, sleep deprivation

The United States has, from the onset of the Civil war, led the moral and ethical charge for proper care and treatment of prisoners of War. In 1863, the Union States published a Code of conduct for U.S. ARMY personnel in regard to the treatment of POWs (Lieber). The Lieber code, named after the co-author Frederick Lieber, called for the humane treatment of POWs held by Union Forces on US soil. But, it was not until the early 19th century that international laws were enacted. In 1864, representatives of many countries met in Geneva Switzerland to discuss the protection of sick and wounded soldiers during times of war. The laws of the convention directed that wounded soldiers be returned to their home country. This meeting led to the First Hague Conference in 1899 where more agreements were made to better define the Laws of War on an international level. United States President Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Price in 1919 for spearheading the League of Nations whose main goal was to reduce armaments and settle conflicts via arbitration through the League. The fist sets of international humanitarian laws were finalized and signed by the United States and other nations in 1929 (Corvisier, 127). In addition to establishing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Geneva Convention provided POWs with the right to food, clothing, housing, and incoming and outgoing mail (TOC, article 4). POWs could not to be forced to provide any information other than their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. The ICRC would report humanitarian conditions and identification data to the council at Hague. Although most countries signed the Geneva Convention, during WW I, WW II, and the Vietnam War, those signatories did not abide by the rules. So, in 1977 additional guidelines were added, offering further protection to POWs and victims of international armed conflicts.

As Tim O'Brien says, "War is Hell, but that's not the half of it" (555). Countries began complying with the Geneva Convention exactly and specifically. Article 4 of the convention defines POWs as "Members of the armed forces, merchant marines, militias, volunteer corps, resistance movements, civilian members of military crews, war correspondents, and supply contractors". Initially, countries involved in conflict, or where war was not officially declared, did not feel the need to abide by any of the agreements because they were not at war. Aside from that, leaders could avoid abiding by the guidelines by their lack of signature. Since the convention excludes active duty members not in uniform, spies, guerrillas, rogue civilians involved in sabotage, and destruction from the definition, countries formed 'goon squads' that were not part of the regular armed forces to torture prisoners, thereby keeping their hands clean. Some countries do not admit to having POWs under their control, but refer to dissidents as 'detainees' indicating that they are not being held captive, but detained until their credentials can be verified. Most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, where the current scandal has occurred, are classified as 'detainees under U.S. supervision', not POWs.

Interrogators believe they have much to gain by mistreating or intimidating POWs. The mistreatment is used prior to the actual interrogation session to encourage the prisoner to talk. Interrogators can gain valuable information on troop movements or future operations of opposing forces. They can use the prisoner as bargaining chips within the conflict, having them read prepared statements denouncing further action by their