Why don't we use the word POW anymore? It seems like the news calls them "detainee", but isn't that a POW?

Question

Or maybe when Americans are taken they are called POW's, but when Americans take people they are called detainees?

Do detainees have the same rights as POW's?

I'm only asking because I'm doing a paper on euphemisms and this is one that I'm using. I didn't mean to start anything or offend anyone!

Answer 1

The current administration does not want to use this word because it triggers the Geneva Convention rights. So they characterize them as "enemy combatants" and "detainees". The argument is they are terrorists not part of the army of a typical national state--and therefor are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Answer 2

The term and rights of a POW are reserved for soldiers backed by a nation! Captured soldiers in Iraq were given this status and protections. Al Quaida prisoners do not belong to a recognized country, and therefore do not fall into this catagory - hence they are called detainees.

Answer 3

I think the POW's get treated worse because they do NOT have any rights under war. Detainees have rights and afforded a lot more care than POW's...just ask a POW.

To those who are giving two-bit opinions, why don't you just say that instead of trying to sound like you know what you're talking about; because there are those of us who DO know what we are talking about.

Answer 4

Well......we don't really have war anymore. We have "conflicts". and "prisoners" is just a nasty word, so why not use a euphamism? "detainees" is so much nicer. Wouldn't you rather be detained than imprisoned? So POW becomes inaccurate - it would have to be DOC - detainee of conflict. It's more P.C. and lets the gov't get away with more human rights violations because all conventions and international treaties the US has signed and ratified contain wordage like "prisoners" and "war", and so this is all just to get through legal loopholes.

Answer 5

Only uniformed soldiers of a country are classified when captured as POWs. These terrorists represent no country, have no uniform, and do not recognize the Geneva Conventions. Thus they do not qualify to be called prisoners of war.

Answer 6

the persons held by the US and our allies are illegaly detained without recourse to law and therefore arent prisoners at all but a P-O-W is a term for someone held during a war and even then some where exchanged or paroled back to their homes but the republicans in the white house and the senate have decided that the writ of habeas corpus that allows for bail or bonding out isnt in force and the rights associated with the bill of rights and our system of govenment do not aplly to these folks

Answer 7

The right is using a different language to under mind the Geneva Convention rules America signed after WWII.

Answer 8

its too dramatic many one or too people are okay but where lets say a church hears their pastor is a pow they would freak out detainee is better to keep people calm

Answer 9

Detainee sounds better than Hostage, and that is what the Suspects in Military Prisons are, suspects. If you are suspected of anything, you can be sent there also.
If that is Freedom, then I am opposed to freedom.

Answer 10

it's all about manipulating language.

With the 1st Gulf War, civilian casualties became "collateral damage."

Now, "the last throes" of "insurgency" (rather than rebellion) are an estimated 15 times longer than the "first" throes.

"anti-Semetic" gets expanded to anything anti-Israel or anti-Israeli policy.

"regime change" replaces invasion/overthrow.

"liberal media" refers to the corporate patsies who advance the Neocon agenda.

the list goes on and on.