Under the Third Geneva Convention, prisoners of war (POW) must be:

  • Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour
  • Able to inform their next of kin and the International Committee of the Red Cross of their capture Allowed to communicate regularly with relatives and receive packages
  • Given adequate food, clothing, housing, and medical attention
  • Paid for work done and not forced to do work that is dangerous, unhealthy, or degrading
  • Released quickly after conflicts end
  • Not compelled to give any information except for name, age, rank, and service number

Just a thought. I’d rather be a POW than a homeless disabled person in the USA. I’d have more rights, respect, better support, and better care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

  • Atin@lemmy.world
    1004·
    3 months ago

    The US broke most of these when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      50·
      3 months ago

      Unidentified Marine #1: Alpha took three artillery hits. Somebody has an idea we’re here. We’ve got four hours of daylight to make it to our next position. We’re not going to deal with these surrenders from division. Send them all back the way they came.

      (Soundbite of dog barking)

      Unidentified Marine #2: Roger that, sir.

      (Soundbite of Marines speaking)

      Unidentified Marine #3: We have orders, Nate.

      (Soundbite of dog barking)

      (Soundbite of Arabic spoken)

      Unidentified Marine #4: Are they (beep) serious? Send them back where? Back to the (beep) death squads?

      Unidentified Marine # 2: Sir, under articles 13 and 20 of the Geneva Convention, we’re obligated to take care of and protect any (beep) that surrenders to us.

      Unidentified Marine #1: Division has ordered us to un-surrender these Iraqis.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      3 months ago

      Wait until you hear about Americas crimes in Vietnam and the rest of South East Asia!

      S.E.A: “Can I get a little of those freedoms you claim to uphold?”

      USA: “Absolutely fucking not”

    • johny@feddit.orgEnglish
      14·
      3 months ago

      They used the term ‘nongovernmental combatant’ (aka terrorist), because a war can only be between states these combatants were not legally POW and thus had no right whatsoever.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        9·
        3 months ago

        Under law, there’s no such a thing as ‘war’, there are armed conflicts. It is also incorrect that armed conflicts can only happen between states, there are international, non-international conflicts and there are other situations of armed violence. And there are different level of international and human rights law that apply different depending on the type of conflict. There’s also parts of tne resolutions that state that it doesn’t matter what you call them, they’re still POW and you still have to treat them as such. The real problem is that the US hasn’t ratified any of those resolutions and conventions because they fear having any diplomatic oversight, the US has committed so many war crimes that it would take decades of research just to sort out the last half of the 20th century.

        Finally, even if international humanitarian law doesn’t apply, then international human rights law still does. But the US plays with rules based international order as their toy because they have the biggest guns and it is hard to front them. And before any of the what abouters comes here to reply, Russia and China are just as bad. No international neocolonialist empire is free of human rights violations.