Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Paris, 1943. / Bibliography: p. [231].

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited / As the United States transforms from threat-based to capabilities-based combat operations, one must examine the ability of existing international laws, domestic directives, and Service regulations and training programs to protect American military and civilian prisoners of war, detainees, and hostages while under enemy control. This thesis explores the impact of The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 (NMS) security environment on existing Code of Conduct (CoC) training. A thorough examination and comparison of the existing legal framework to the future components of warfare provides a new context through which to evaluate existing CoC training programs and determine the overall applicability of the course content to the expanded spectrum of captivity. The Department of Defense must compensate for the lack of effective international protection by designing a conduct-after-capture program that addresses the rapidly changing conditions of different captivity situations. This thesis reveals that the existing CoC training programs and SERE skill sets lack the flexibility to enable the isolated person to rapidly adjust to changes in the future captivity environment and proposes a core captivity curriculum that provides an adaptable set of skills designed to enable the captive to survive and return with honor regardless of the captor or location of captivity. / Major, United States Air Force

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2003. / Cataloged from OhioLink's Electronic Theses and Dissertations website. Includes abstract and vita.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen.

Thesis (bachelor)--1910. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [3]-5).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Bern, 1947. / Bibliography: p. 3-6.

Thesis (M.A.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 113-120). Also available via the Internet.

American prisoner of war (POW) policy consists of repeated improvisational efforts during wartime followed by few efforts to incorporate lessons learned. As such, in every war, the United States has improvised its system of POW maintenance and utilization. At no time prior to World War II was the United States military prepared to capture and maintain the prisoners taken in any American conflict. The United States has depended upon reciprocal treatment of enemy prisoners and threatened retaliation for mistreatment of American captives in every war. It has also adhered to accepted customs and international law regarding prisoners, providing housing, food, and medical care to POWs at least the equal of that given to American prisoners. However, the U.S. military has often sought the most expedient methods of maintaining prisoners, a practice that has led to accusations of neglect. In the nineteenth century, American wars were typically fought upon the North American continent and were limited in scope, which facilitated the maintenance of enemy prisoners and eased the improvisation of policy and practice. In the twentieth century, the United States participated in conflicts in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, complicating POW issues. World War II and subsequent conflicts show a radical departure from earlier wars, as the army planned for the capture of enemy troops and was better prepared to maintain them. However, the War on Terror represents a return to improvisation, as a lack of planning and a failure to follow established policies contributed to allegations of mistreatment in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

American prisoner of war (POW) policy consists of repeated improvisational efforts during wartime followed by few efforts to incorporate lessons learned. As such, in every war, the United States has improvised its system of POW maintenance and utilization. At no time prior to World War II was the United States military prepared to capture and maintain the prisoners taken in any American conflict. The United States has depended upon reciprocal treatment of enemy prisoners and threatened retaliation for mistreatment of American captives in every war. It has also adhered to accepted customs and international law regarding prisoners, providing housing, food, and medical care to POWs at least the equal of that given to American prisoners. However, the U.S. military has often sought the most expedient methods of maintaining prisoners, a practice that has led to accusations of neglect. In the nineteenth century, American wars were typically fought upon the North American continent and were limited in scope, which facilitated the maintenance of enemy prisoners and eased the improvisation of policy and practice. In the twentieth century, the United States participated in conflicts in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, complicating POW issues. World War II and subsequent conflicts show a radical departure from earlier wars, as the army planned for the capture of enemy troops and was better prepared to maintain them. However, the War on Terror represents a return to improvisation, as a lack of planning and a failure to follow established policies contributed to allegations of mistreatment in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Thèse. / Contient une bibliographie.