Talk:Surrendered Enemy Personnel

Regarding the removal of the Geneva conventions

More specifically this edit

I have some problems with it. First, you base your argument on a session in parliament, where it was stated that "we have, whenever practicable, given them similar treatment". 1. We do not know that it is a fact, all that it can be used for is to state that in a session in parliament a politician stated that they "were given similar" treatment.

When was it practicable? Half the time?

From:S. P. MacKenzie "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II" "Unwilling (and to an extent unable) to meet the high standards of the Geneva code in coping with this huge mass of humanity, the Allies took the opportunity afforded by the disappearance of the Third Reich to argue that the convention no longer operated-that POW status did not apply to the vast majority who had passed into captivity on and after May 5. Dubbed instead "Surrendered Enemy Personnel" (SEP) by the British and "Disarmed Enemy Forces" (DEF) by the Americans, these prisoners often endured extremely harsh conditions."

So we have a direct connection to the Geneva conventions.

I hope you remember the ICRC commentary:

Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. [1]

And a glaringly obvious example of not providing POW mandated treatment that can be found also in the commentary:

"The Convention applies to prisoners of war "until their final release and repatriation". The time at which they must be released and repatriated is determined by Article 118, paragraph 1, which provides that "prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (3)." Now the parliament discussions you cite were from October 1946, and June 1947. I.e. in the second case more than 2 years after the end of the war. We not only have explicit statements to the effect, we also have a very obvious example of "non-similar" treatment.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A minister speaking in Parliament can not tell a lie, if they do so intentionally, they loose their position in government (see for example the Profumo affair). So any statement by a member of a British Government to the House of Commons can be taken as true unless proven otherwise. That is not to say they can not be evasive (which the usually are) or that they can not be "Economical with the truth" which is something Government members are also frequent transgressors. (i.e. They have to tell the truth, but they do not have to tell the whole truth).

You wrote in the article "was used in order to deprive the prisoners of the right enjoyed by" is biased wording, and is very different from the ICRC commentary which says "deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" Your wording implies that was the motive and that by implication they were entitled to be treated as POWs, -- Think of it as the difference between a criminal who is sent to prison as a punishment and a madman sent to a secure hospital, both are deprived of liberty, but only in the former is the motive directly the intent to deprive a person of their liberty, in the latter as soon as the person is no longer a threat to society they will be released -- Yet many of the major combatants who had signed GC (1929) took a similar view that such an understanding of GC 1929 was correct,[2] (and as the ICJ judgement on legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons made it clear the relevant articles in treaties have to be read as "the terms have been understood, in the practice of states, ...". (paragraphs 55) what matters in international law is how the parties to a treaty interpret it in practice). That the wording was changed in the new GCIII of 1949 implies that the international community recognised this, a fact that is mentioned in the ICRC commentary.As the ICRC commentary states:

Under the present provision, the Convention applies to persons who "fall into the power" of the enemy. This term is also used in the opening sentence of Article 4 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' above, replacing the expression "captured" which was used in the 1929 Convention (Article 1 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article'). It indicates clearly that the treatment laid down by the Convention is applicable not only to military personnel taken prisoner in the course of fighting, but also to those who fall into the hands of the adversary following surrender or mass capitulation.

Speaking of the ICRC commentary, I think you are confused. When the ICRC commentary refers to Article 118 it is referring to the 1949 GCIII not the Geneva Convention of 1929 which did not have an Article 118.

Either we can duplicate the Disarmed Enemy Forces article in which case we may as well merge them or this article can concentrate on Commonwealth forces. But it is wrong to have two article that duplicate the same information. For example if this is about Commonwealth forces then the sentence "On March 1, 1947 the U.S. stated that the SEPs should be regarded as POW's and be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention" is misplaced. What do you think should be the focus of this article? We could for example move this to "Surrendered Enemy Personnel (British)" and make this a disambiguation page.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A minister speaking in parliament is worthless for the purpose of this article, especially when he adds the unspecified caveat "whenever practicable".

What you state as biased wording is based on the source, a text of which I provided above for your benefit. Verify as you please. As to being entitled POW status, do you forget that POW status was returned to them later? (at least to the American prisoners) Why was this done?

No idea, but the fact that additions to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were made suggests that it was widely perceived to be a hole in the coverage of the 1929 convention that needed altering. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread the text regarding SEP and CEP, if requests were made for providing both classes with POW protection then there really is no need to use 2 classes. The source states that the enemy soldiers were given POW status in order to encourage surrender, and explicitly refers to the latter group, i.e. surrendered enemy personnel.

I don't think so. The information is taken from two sources (in the order listed in the footnotes) the first says:

"In fact, one of the most remarkable features of the insurgency in Malaya was the willingness of Communist Terrorists to surrender themselves, becoming Surrendered Enemy Personnel (SEPs) and earning bounties for doing so;"

The second says:

"Such practice developed, for example, in the Malaysian conflict to distinguish between 'captured enemy personnel' (CEP) and 'surrendered enemy personnel' (SEP) whereby the latter group would also be treated as prisoners of war."

Note the word "also" in the second one. There are two further points on this Britain did not recognise the conflict as a war hence the term "Emergency", and it was an internal war not an international war which effects how the Geneva Conventions are applied, so it is not really a very good example for explaning international law.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused here. My interpretation of the source was that SEP were treated as POW, while CEP were not treated as POW.[3] You state that both categories were treated as POW. Either you are confusing the two groups, or you are confused by the "also". Clearly "also" means that in addition to being SEP they were "also" treated as POW's. Therefore it follows that the CEP category was NOT treated as POW. Read the entire paragraph. And "also" this is a good example of why it is pointless to make elaborate arguments about international law. I'm not a lawyer, and you are not a layer (I presume). I'm not here to explain international law, I'm just here to contribute the basic nuts and bolts about "SEP" to this encyclopedia, as applied by the British. It is actually really simple. The Brittish wanted the rebels/terrorists to surrender, and created the designation SEP in order to encourage surrender by promising to treat them in accordance to the Geneva conventions, i.e. as POWs. Those that they had to go out and catch would meet a more sinister fate.... This should not have been needed, but here are some more sources: 1.Eloquently explained the difference between SEP and CEP[4] and 2. Eloquently explained what could happen to you if you were reclassified from SEP to CEP.[5]. If you still disagree I suggest we simply ask for 3rd opinion to interpret p. 328 of "The Law of War", (preferably a native English speaking academic if such requests are possible) --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I concede error on ICRC regarding release of prisoner immediately after hostilities. The 1929 version only stated that they should be released after peace or armistice. The Allies denied the Germans this. In view of Allied use of this technicality in order to obtain a modern slave labor force the ICRC was forced to modify the wording of the 1949 convention to stop exploitation using this loophole. We need to add slave labor as a motive. Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims

Slave labour is an emotive phrase, were Bevin Boys and Land Girls slave labours? Are conscripts in an army slave labour? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As you so strongly have pointed out in the Allied War Crimes article we go by what we can source, arguments have no value. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the future of this article, I need to do some thinking about that. My preliminary thought is that German SEP's are roughly identical to DEF, so the European part could be merged that article. Japanese Surrendered Personnel, which I have made a start on, is a completely different animal, different laws etc, so I think it is in Asia the commonwealth SEP focus should be on. Give me a few days to think it over.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is to be a merge with DEF (which is a term for the surrendered group) the it makes more sense to merge it into this article which is a term for the individual. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on two counts, 1. I do not see the logic of your statement, and 2, DEF is by far the more well known term so it should remain as a separate article.

Also, I no longer consider merging an option, at least not at this stage. There were important differences between the groups, the U.S. prisoners were used as a labor force in Germany for a time, but that did not last nearly as long as the imprisonment that the British maintained (if we do not count the Prisoners the U.S. had handed to the French, they still felt slightly responsible for them[6]). The British kept their slaves for years in the British agriculture and in the middle east, see this extract. Plenty of material for expansion in this article. Only once both articles have their basic contents in order can we can see if there is any merit in a merger. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time, but I'm collecting material both on SEP and debellatio, I'll get back to it as "asap" as real life permits.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)