Three University professors presented a lecture on the treatment of prisoners of war in the war on terror last Tuesday evening.

Dr. William Werpehowski of theology and religious studies, Dr. Lowell Gustafson of political science and Dr. Greg Magarian of the law school discussed the topic within the context of the Geneva Convention in front of an audience in the Saint Augustine Center.

During this lecture, members of the University community were introduced to different theories of war, as well as the principle of discrimination in war, in which certain targets are considered to be legitimate military targets (i.e, only combatants and military bases).

Werpehowski distinguished between two different ideas in Catholic social thought regarding just war: jus ad bellum, a Latin phrase for the “right to wage war,” and jus in bello, Latin for “right conduct in war.” He also presented another set of ideas, known as jus ad pacem, or the belief that the purpose of war should be to advance the cause of peace.

Werpehowski’s definition of the principle of discrimination provided a segue for Gustafson’s argument about the Bush administration’s rejection of the Geneva Accords and treatment of prisoners of war.

The Geneva Convention produced a series of documents on how to treat prisoners and how to define the term “prisoner.”

Gustafson pointed out that the Geneva Convention’s doctrines were dismissed by the Bush administration because the prisoners taken in the war on terror did not fit the guidelines of soldiers as established by the Geneva doctrines.

The prisoners taken wore no insignia designating them as soldiers, nor did they carry arms openly, thus failing to meet two criteria the Geneva Convention developed to identify soldiers. Therefore, according to the Bush administration, they cannot be considered prisoners of war and cannot enjoy the rights granted to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention.

“I think the treatment of prisoners brings up the fundamental principles of we as a people,” Gustafson said.

“Unless you treat people under your complete domination with total respect, you become a lesser people,” Gustafson added

He also stressed the moral and ethical limits that need to be considered in any war, with special attention to the war on terror. “The real conundrum we are facing is: what are those limits in an unconventional war like this?”

Following the lecture, the proctors set aside time for questions, thoughts and brief discussion.

“I think it’s important to continue to try to have a conversation that’s informed in our practices in the war against terror and our practices in the war against Iraq,” Werpehowski said.

“I would hate to think that once the presidential election was over we would be free to give up our responsibility to stay informed and ask questions.”

The response from the crowd was strong. “I thought it was very interesting,” freshman Erica Tursi said. “How can you fight a war like that, when there’s no way to distinguish [who’s a soldier and who’s not]?”

This lecture was sponsored by the Office of Mission Effectiveness, the Villanova Law School, the Center for Peace and Justice Education, the department of theology and religious studies, and the department of political science.Three University professors presented a lecture on the treatment of prisoners of war in the war on terror last Tuesday evening.

Dr. William Werpehowski of theology and religious studies, Dr. Lowell Gustafson of political science and Dr. Greg Magarian of the law school discussed the topic within the context of the Geneva Convention in front of an audience in the Saint Augustine Center.

During this lecture, members of the University community were introduced to different theories of war, as well as the principle of discrimination in war, in which certain targets are considered to be legitimate military targets (i.e, only combatants and military bases).

Werpehowski distinguished between two different ideas in Catholic social thought regarding just war: jus ad bellum, a Latin phrase for the “right to wage war,” and jus in bello, Latin for “right conduct in war.” He also presented another set of ideas, known as jus ad pacem, or the belief that the purpose of war should be to advance the cause of peace.

Werpehowski’s definition of the principle of discrimination provided a segue for Gustafson’s argument about the Bush administration’s rejection of the Geneva Accords and treatment of prisoners of war.

The Geneva Convention produced a series of documents on how to treat prisoners and how to define the term “prisoner.”

Gustafson pointed out that the Geneva Convention’s doctrines were dismissed by the Bush administration because the prisoners taken in the war on terror did not fit the guidelines of soldiers as established by the Geneva doctrines.

The prisoners taken wore no insignia designating them as soldiers, nor did they carry arms openly, thus failing to meet two criteria the Geneva Convention developed to identify soldiers. Therefore, according to the Bush administration, they cannot be considered prisoners of war and cannot enjoy the rights granted to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention.

“I think the treatment of prisoners brings up the fundamental principles of we as a people,” Gustafson said.

“Unless you treat people under your complete domination with total respect, you become a lesser people,” Gustafson added

He also stressed the moral and ethical limits that need to be considered in any war, with special attention to the war on terror. “The real conundrum we are facing is: what are those limits in an unconventional war like this?”

Following the lecture, the proctors set aside time for questions, thoughts and brief discussion.

“I think it’s important to continue to try to have a conversation that’s informed in our practices in the war against terror and our practices in the war against Iraq,” Werpehowski said.

“I would hate to think that once the presidential election was over we would be free to give up our responsibility to stay informed and ask questions.”

The response from the crowd was strong. “I thought it was very interesting,” freshman Erica Tursi said. “How can you fight a war like that, when there’s no way to distinguish [who’s a soldier and who’s not]?”

This lecture was sponsored by the Office of Mission Effectiveness, the Villanova Law School, the Center for Peace and Justice Education, the department of theology and religious studies, and the department of political science.