So you demand long-winded replies?

Okay (like I got time for crap like this).

According to Article 2 of the Convention, the Convention covers any declared war, or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more nations/national parties, even though a state of war might not be recognized by one of the participants, binding all signed participants to the creed of the Convention.

According to Article 3, all prisoners are to be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria, and sets the following acts to be considered prohibited:

* Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture

* Taking of hostages

* Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

* The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples

Of particular note:
Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation, as well as against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Hmm-m. "Public curiosity".

Our media sources seem to disregard this little tidbit on a daily basis, but then it's really not their job. That would have been something for the soldiers who released the initial photos to have handled. Besides, it’s the media’s job to “break the story”, regardless of the many laws they choose to quote as defense that fall to the wayside for the story.

And Article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

And regarding the prisoners who have died as a result of combat attacks on Iraqi prisons:
Article 19

Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

Only those prisoners of war who, owing to wounds or sickness, would run greater risks by being evacuated than by remaining where they are, may be temporarily kept back in a danger zone.

Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone.

Then there's that notorious flight to Guatanimo, and Article 20:

The evacuation of prisoners of war shall always be effected humanely and in conditions similar to those for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station.

The Detaining Power shall supply prisoners of war who are being evacuated with sufficient food and potable water, and with the necessary clothing and medical attention. The Detaining Power shall take all suitable precautions to ensure their safety during evacuation, and shall establish as soon as possible a list of the prisoners of war who are evacuated.

If prisoners of war must, during evacuation, pass through transit camps, their stay in such camps shall be as brief as possible.

However, it should be noted that the Geneva Convention does not apply to non-uniformed combatants who pretend to be simple civilians (AKA local subversives and spies), or to prisoners captured, but not yet catalogued as official POWs. Seems the Geneva Convention only works on prisoners declared to actually be Prisoners of War. In this event, and depending upon certain circumstances, hooding is completely legal. It should also be noted that prisoners who are known to hold certain information will always be questioned -- regardless of Geneva Convention and the International Red Cross -- at great length, and with a coercive mindset.

You see, I was wrong (please record this admission for future reference) in stating the use of the hood to be proper for POWs. It obviously is not. It is, however, completely legal for the enemy we now fight, our Illegal Enemy Combatants (IECs). They dispose of their uniforms at the drop of a hat, they fire upon our uniformed troops in the guise of innocent bystanders and, upon capture, insist upon being free citizens of Iraq rather than soldiers. In short, they are subversives and spies, and are set in line for interrogation.

Now, if you wish to go on and on about how terrible hooding a prisoner is and ignore that they were pissed upon, ridiculed, possibly beaten -- some possibly dying as a result -- and all while being photographed because it was neat, that's fine. Personally, I'd think you were missing a truly large picture here.

What we have here is a small group of self-centered officers who really have no preferences about how a war is fought, so long as they (not necessarily win, but) survive. They leave their people untrained, and ill-reviewed -- as a sort of buffer against the reality they live in -- while at the same time enjoying all the benefits of being a high-ranking officer.

(No, Bowser, I’m speaking of military officers, not our O, so benevolent CinC & Co.)

I had a cowardly, fascist superior of this sort, while stationed in his little duchy called Camp Darby, in Tuscana, Italy, and was overjoyed to see him FINALLY retire. Sad that he actually made it that far, but glad nonetheless that he was gone. Ya know, he even ordered ALL his officers to have their people (AKA the whole post) “walk out to the gate, smile, and wave goodbye” to him and his family as they departed... It was an “order”. Not a troop formation being marched to a designated parade ground, but an order for an impromptu ceremony of his grand departure.

I think about a 5th of the post actually showed up,
Dan