Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Front" channel.

If you have to fight, would you rather have a gentleman's agreement about which lines will not be crossed, or just have a free for all? It's really easy to say the rules don't make sense until you wish they applied to you.
1
lmao pow status doesn't expire as soon as the war ends
1
@neiloflongbeck5705 That contradicts what you said earlier, all I needed to hear.
1
@neiloflongbeck5705 first you say after the war they're no longer protected and now you say that the host country has a duty to repatriate prisoners of war as soon as possible.
1
@neiloflongbeck5705 "the former POWs would no longer have POW status" - but you still have to treat them like POWs and you're obligated to return them as soon as possible. GG. By the way Article 5 of Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states: "The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 [ Link ] from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation." So until you release and repatriate your POWs, they're still considered POWs. "The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of war and in the immediate aftermath in regards to their repatriation. This is not a contradiction." - Yes it is, because you have stated that it is legal to torture POWs once the war ends. But then you contradicted yourself by stating that the host nation has a duty to repatriate them as soon as possible, and the torture would conflict with that duty. Besides, you happen to be wrong and POW status remains until you are released and repatriated. If the hostilities end but you are not released, you are still a prisoner of war.
1
@neiloflongbeck5705 huh, nice catch. Still, the POWs are POWs until release and Article 75 of the Part IV of the 1929 conventions states they need to be repatriated as soon as possible. If they were no longer POWs, there would be no duty to repatriate. Torture still not legal.
1