PRISONERS OF WAR. Ordinarily a prisoner of war is a person belonging to the military and naval forces of a belligerent and who has fallen into the hands of the enemy by capture or otherwise. This definition, however, is both too broad and too narrow, since there are persons attached to an army who if cap tured cannot be detained as prisoners of war, such for example as chaplains, Red Cross doc tors and nurses, while there are others who fol low an army without being attached to it, yet who if captured may be held as prisoners of war, such for example as newspaper corre spondents, reporters, contractors and the like. But to be entitled to the treatment accorded prisoners of war, The Hague Convention (Art. 13) requires that they must be in possession of a certificate from the military authorities of the army they are accompanying. Until 1907 sea men on a merchant vessel of enemy nationality if captured might be detained as prisoners of war, but The Hague Conference of that year adopted a rule exempting them from liability to be detained in captivity, provided they give a formal promise not to engage in military services during the period of the war. In case they are citizens or subjects of a neutral state they must be liberated unconditionally. The refusal for a time of the German government early in 1917 to release certain American sea men who had been captured while serving as members of the crew of a British armed mer chant vessel was in contravention of this rule. On the other hand, the Germans refused to treat as prisoners of war the masters and crews of armed enemy merchantmen who ex ercised the right to defend themselves against attack by German submarines, and in pursu ance of this theory they court-martialed and shot as a sea franc-tireur in 1916 Captain Fryatt, the master of an English Channel steamer, for defending his vessel against de struction by a German submarine. In like man ner the Germans refused to treat as prisoners of war Belgian civilians who upon the ap proach of the German armies took up arms and resisted the enemy, without being under the command of responsible commanders and with out being clothed in uniform, this in the face of The Hague provision which allows the civil population in such a case to rise spontaneously and endeavoi to beat off the invader, subject only to the condition that they carry their arms openly and conduct their operations according to the laws and customs of war. The reason given by the Germans for refusing to treat such persons as prisoners of war was that they had sufficient time before the arrival of the German armies to perfect an organization and equip themselves with uniforms.
Practice, especially during the World War, makes a distinction between military prisoners and civil prisoners. The former category em braces captives belonging to the armed forces of the enemy; the latter includes enemy aliens arrested and confined in internment camps. The status of both classes of prisoners is essentially the same, however, and the treatment of them has been substantially the same.
In early times it was the custom to torture and even kill prisoners. It was considered a mitigation of their lot to reduce them to slav ery, and consequently enslavement, especially among the Romans, came to be a common prac tice. the Middle Ages the practice of ransom was introduced under which prisoners might obtain their release by the payment of a sum of money, or they were redeemed from captivity by the state of which they were sub jects. But this practice is no longer followed.
The status of prisoners and the treatment which must be accorded them are now regulated in detail by The Hague Conventions of 1907 and especially the convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land. The latter convention at the outset condemns an ancient principle by laying down the rule that prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile govern ment and not of the individuals or corps who capture them. They cannot, therefore, be ran somed or sold into slavery by the individuals who take them. They must be humanely treated. They may not, therefore, be beaten, tortured starved or cruelly punished. Still less may they be put to death, except for crimes punish able by death under the laws of the captor and after due trial and conviction, although the German war manual asserts that they may be killed whenever their presence becomes a dan ger to the existence of their captor. But the British and American manuals take occasion to express doubt whether such extreme neces sities can ever arise that will compel or warrant a military commander in killing his prisoners on the ground of self-preservation. They may of course be punished for acts of insubordination and reasonable measures may be taken to prevent them from escaping. They may indeed be shot while attempting to escape, but if after having escaped they are recap tured they cannot be punished for having escaped. Prisoners are allowed to retain their personal property, except arms, horses and mil itary papers. It is the duty of the government into whose hands they have fallen to feed and clothe them, and as regards board, lodging and clothing they are entitled to the same treatment as the troops of the government which holds them in captivity. The captor may require prisoners, except officers, to work according to their rank and aptitude, but their tasks must not be excessive and must have no connection with the operations of the war. Work done for the state must be paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work performed. The wages so paid shall go toward improving their position and the balance shall be paid them after deducting the cost of their maintenance. Offi cers taken prisoners must receive the same rate of pay as officers of corresponding rank in the country where they are held, the amount to be ultimately returned by their own government.