I know you’re going to accuse me of being pedantic when I say this, but… no. POW camps.
The two are very different things, even if there’s a fair amount of conflation in popular imagination. ‘Concentation camps’ are camps designed to concentrate a target civilian population into easily-tracked groupings, in a kind of inversion and perversion of the system used for refugee facilities. They’re also almost always aimed inward. By that, I mean they target civilian populations already under the auspices of the government in question. They usually house populations the government believes will be relatively compliant with minimal threat of force. Even if some outlier elements of the population will resist, the population en masse is expected to be easily contained. After all, on at least some level, they’re your people. They usually don’t have anywhere else to go—or don’t know there are others who would take them in, if they could escape.
Note that minimal threat of force is not the same as threat of minimal force. Minimal threat of force is things like not needing to have tanks present, not needing to have the population always shackled and restrained, etc. The amount of threatening being actively done is minimized, even if what is being threatened is usually the most brutal and vicious forms of punishment, torture, and inevitable death that can be imagined, often applied indiscriminately.
Additionally, concentration camps generally tend toward poor and abusive treatment of the interred. They can be framed as ‘work camps’ or ‘re-education camps’ or what have you, but the end goal is always the same, even if it’s not stated: to keep a large number of civilians—specific populations that those in power disfavor—under control and isolated.
POW camps, on the other hand, aim to deal with external elements. Prisoners of war, after all, come about during a war. They’re people fighting for the other side. This tends to mean a consideration of the value of those prisoners as potential commodities in international dealings. POWs taken can become POWs traded, after all, and you never know when you’re going to need the ability to get the relative/friend of someone influential out of the enemy’s camps.
The individuals incarcerated thus are also all demonstrably individuals with a history of violence or contributing to violence. They were participating in a war, after all. They have external loyalties. They know those external loyalties exist and would welcome them back. More, they have an obligation to continue their service to those external forces. It is their duty to try to escape—or, failing that, to try to gather whatever intelligence they can while imprisoned and find a way to deliver it to their superiors. More, they are trained in methods of damaging your personnel and systems.
As a result, the threat of force used in containment tends to be greater, even if understated. The tanks may not be visible, but they’re available. The prisoners may not be shackled all the time, but they could be. The facility has enough shackles for everyone.
And while the facility’s occupants are under greater and more constant scrutiny, the systemic expectation is that violations will be met with proportionate discipline. After all, treatment of prisoners is one more front in the propaganda war. Yes, obviously there are organizations that don’t adhere to this tenet, that go out of their way to be brutal to their POWs, but it’s generally frowned upon, if only because you don’t want your guys treated that way if they get caught.
POW camps and concentration camps are very much not the same thing, and the terms shouldn’t be used interchangeably. One is a necessary evil: a place to incarcerate people who aren’t actually criminals, but from whom active, potentially violent resistance can and should be expected. The other’s just evil.
You want ‘concentration camps’… go look at ‘slave ghettos’. Go look at slavery itself.