More Than 33% Think Torture OK

More than one-third of U.S. soldiers surveyed in Iraq said they think torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents…..


I wonder if that goes both ways
? Do you suppose they also think that insurgents should be allowed to torture them if it helps gather important information?

Four in every 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.

Again, the question is, if the insurgents thought it would save the life of a fellow insurgent are these soldiers prepared to approve of that?

The problem in adopting the tactics of your enemy is that after you do so there soon ceases to be any real difference between you and them, other than, of course, which end of what gun barrel is pointed where.

———-

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Pet’s Garden Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, The Magical Rose Garden, A Blog For All, and stikNstein… has no mercy, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted by stageleft on Saturday, May 5th, 2007 and is filed under Human Rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

6 Responses to “More Than 33% Think Torture OK”

  1. Mentarch on May 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
  2. Don on May 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    You’re an officer in command of 30 men, trapped behind enemy lines. You have a prisoner that can lead you and your men to safety. But he won’t. Do you value the prisoner’s life more than the lives of the 30 men in your charge, or do you ensure their safety. From “Finding Forrester,” it ain’t a soup question.

  3. stageleft on May 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    If I was that officer you are asking me if I would be willing to become what I am fighting against - the answer is no, I would not.

    It is not a matter of placing a higher value on the prisoners life than the lives of my men, although that is exactly the spin that would be put on it by those who either condone, or are trying so desperately to excuse, and/or justify, the human rights violations that have already taken place - it is a matter of either believing that there is a fundamentally moral difference between the two sides, or there is not.

    Becoming the enemy is not defeating the enemy.

  4. stageleft on May 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    [update]

    WASHINGTON รขโ‚ฌโ€ In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

    More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.

    “It is disappointing,” said analyst John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think tank. “But anybody who is surprised by it doesn’t understand war. … This is about combat stress.”

    The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

    These are not western values, and they have become the enemy of western society.

  5. nastyboy on May 8th, 2007 at 10:11 am

    If I was that officer you are asking me if I would be willing to become what I am fighting against - the answer is no, I would not.

    Spoken by someone who has never been in combat, not that that’s a bad thing.

    It’s easier to maintain high ideals when you’re not making life and death decisions on a daily basis.

  6. stageleft on May 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    What makes an individual who is willing to embrace and put into practice the human rights abuses of the enemy any different from the enemy?

Causes & Sponsors

Recent Comments

  • Raphael: Oh, I’m sure reading that conversation will only confirm whatever prearrangement of thoughts people...
  • Raphael: @balbulican - This was Dawg’s argument as well, and I think it’s a distraction from the main...
  • balbulican: I provided a link to the discussion in question, Raphael ( a courtesy not often afforded me by the folks...
  • Raphael: @balbulican - You oversimplify my viewpoints, but I agree the Oxford debate was regrettable. I haven’t...
  • Raphael: @LuLu - Get your facts straight. The discussion that time wasn’t about an encroaching “brown...
  • Throbbin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =G-lMOxuciYQ
  • stageleft: @Throbbin: hehe
  • Throbbin: Fuck Saskatchewan!
  • Throbbin: Someone should challenge this (if Saskatchewan adopts this policy) by refusing to serve someone wearing a...
  • LuLu: @balbulican - Perhaps, but then I’m sure it’s all the same sense of not-white oppression as far as...

Disclaimer: The writings, musing, comments, thoughts, and ideas, put forward within the stageleft.info domain belong solely to their individual authors who hold ultimate responsibility for them. While here be mindful of the words of Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.

Designed by Gabfire slightly modified by stageleft