Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to If you want to know what a liberal thinks of Dan's list...

re: No, hooding prisoners does not go against the tenets of the Geneva Convention . . .
D. Spires — (archived)

Hooding is an extreme measure, yes, but one used in the beginning phases of interrogation in every Allied and NATO nation on the planet. The hood is used to disorient an internee in regards to his surroundings.

The shit hits the fan when Illegal Enemy Combatants (IECs) and/or Prisoners of War (POWs) are paraded before television cameras, or photographed for nothing more than personal gratification, bound, shackled, hooded, tied, and humiliated. For the United States Army, those simple photos = felony crimes, carrying with them 20-year federal prison sentences for the photographer, and for any persons supporting the taking of the pictures. In the more extreme cases where prisoners have died due to neglect and/or abuse, the sentence is death by hanging for all participants, active and passive.

Then come the investigations into -- prison irregularities. The hood is not meant to be a prison garment, and mistreatment of IECs and/or POWs remains punishable, likely drawing 1- to 5-year sentences, depending upon the misdeed in question.

Yes, I would have no trouble hooding prisoners and questioning them. I would have no trouble tapping the toe of my boot against them so they know where I am. I would have no problem eating in the presence of a hooded captive, or in discussing them and their case with others, while they listened, as though they were not with me in the room.

No, placing a hood over a prisoner's head is nothing more than a tool of the trade, and one that’s hardly criminal. War is hell. Interrogation is -- uncomfortable.

Dan

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (44 posts)