An interesting Op-Ed piece (by a history professor and author) in the NY Times talks about the treatment of American "insurgents" captured by the British. Here's a brief snippet:
The prisoners of New York left their mark somewhere else, too — in international law. Almost to the bitter end, the British took the position that captured American insurgents weren't soldiers but "rebels" and that defining them as prisoners of war amounted to de facto recognition of American independence. Americans responded that by not according prisoner-of-war status to the captives, the British had opened the door to, perhaps even encouraged, prison abuses.Certainly, the treatment as described in the article of American captives was far worse than that of Iraqi prisoners, but the parallels are interesting.
Quote:
The prisoners of New York left their mark somewhere else, too — in international law. Almost to the bitter end, the British took the position that captured American insurgents weren't soldiers but "rebels" and that defining them as prisoners of war amounted to de facto recognition of American independence. Americans responded that by not according prisoner-of-war status to the captives, the British had opened the door to, perhaps even encouraged, prison abuses.