Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[michaeledward]

After what they do to their captives, you'll forgive me if I find it hard to get my panties in a twist over this.

And what if they are not doing it 'captives'? What if these actions are taking place against residents of the United States in prisons in New Jersey? Would that get your panties in a twist?

What if the people being attacked by dogs and beaten by guards were your neighbors?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19287&highlight=Abu+Ghraib

When does it become unacceptable?

 

[Adept]

In a position of complete hypocrisy, if we are to turn around and torture our prisoners.

I agree. Recreational torture is a no-no. It makes the job of the military that much harder. That is why it bothers me, not because of the human rights of the prisoners.

As a more substantial response, my point was that it's possible to be concerned and argue (since that's all we're doing right now) against BOTH country's torturing prisoners, instead of deciding one or the other. I think both are wrong, and am willing to argue so.

But are both equally wrong, or is one worse than the other? Is one an isolated incident, while the other is very common? Was anyone killed deliberately in AG, and if they were, was it a common event? To me, getting worked up about the 'abuse' of iraqi prisoners is like looking at the rate of automotive accidents and focusing on the upholstery of the cars involved. It's not the important part of the picture.

Besides, walrus' need friends, too. :lol:

Yes, yes they do.

So because there are varying, and oftentimes opposing, standards of right and wrong, all are equally valid and should therefore not be looked towards for making decisions?

Bingo. Right and wrong are like beauty and ugly. You might consider it wrong to racially discriminate, and the KKK do not. Which of you can point to a commonly accepted, objective list of all things,which categorises racial discrimination either way?

Neither of you. No such list exists. There is no right and wrong, only opinions. Some opinions are held by more people than others, or held by the people otherwise in power, and thus they become arbitrary social standards of right and wrong. Even looking at our own (western) society in the last few hundred years reveals large shifts in the social perception of right and wrong. It was considered wrong for women to vote. It was right to own slaves. It was right to beat your wife with a stick. It was wrong for women to reveal ankles in public. It was right to stab your neighbour at a meal, as long as you used a knife. There is no huge list that complies the moral weight of each act on the planet for all time. The changing social values preclude it.

Once again, and inaccurate and incomplete description of a legitimate medical procedure from someone with, apparently, incomplete knowledge.

To process you are describing is correctly termed 'Intact Dilation and Extraction' and is sometimes called D&X. There are times when this medical proceedure is required and is the most appropriate medical proceedure available.

This is not a debate about the specific morality of abortions of any stripe. It is a point raised to illustrate differing moral standards around the globe. Whether or not the procedure is the most appropriate or not does not change what people think of it. In fact, that rather highlights my point. At times, it may be considered the most appropriate medical procedure. Just like, at times, people in African nations consider it the most appropriate procedure to muilate the genitals of young girls to 'prepare' them for marriage.

No, the actions at abu Ghraib were out of order because they were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. May I direct you here for reference.

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Article 4[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.[/font]

As you can see, the insurgents captured in Iraq are, for the most part, NOT prisoners of war at all, and are not protected by the geneva convention.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Not all the prisoners in Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuse incident are insurgents. Some are there for civil crimes.

Your rationale or defense for abusing them?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, I believe they fall into these areas:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

..
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
..

 

[Adept]

Actually, I believe they fall into these areas:

Given that the passage requires a fulfilment of all the conditions, no they do not. Not only do they NOT carry arms openly (manufacture of IEDs and car bombing hardly count) but they most certainly do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a difference, and are not conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of the 'war'.

Not all the prisoners in Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuse incident are insurgents. Some are there for civil crimes.

Your rationale or defense for abusing them?


Regards,


Steve

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the soldiers at AG. I'm saying that the abuse those prisoners suffered was of a minimal level, and not worth my time being concerned about.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Whew. One was wondering when we'd get rid of those tired, worn-out religious principles about decency, as well as those pesky martial arts ideas about avoiding violence, treating people decently, and protecting the weak and helpless.

One is also glad to see that in the New America, that whole wacky thing about living in a country that stood for something better than the way They did things, that was indeed Lincoln's "last, best hope," has all been swept away.

One can only suggest that we do unto you what was done to helpless prisoners, and then recheck this whole triviality argument. By the way, we've also shot down airliners, machine gun and rocketed weddings and school buses filled with kids. Waddya think--triviality, or just an oopsie or two?

At what point is it, pray tell, that torture becomes significant? At what point is it that you begin to at least wonder about your government devising the theory and practice of torture, getting tame lawyers and judges to OK it, and then going out and actually employing torture--oh, silly me, "duress,"--as a considered, settled policy?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There is what the law states, and what is 'right'. The law may allow for certain actions, but that still doesn't make it right to actually perform those actions.

As to Lincoln, he would have approved of those actions..the same way he approved of the destruction against Southern Civilians during and after the US civil war. But that is another debate.

 

[Adept]

Whew. One was wondering when we'd get rid of those tired, worn-out religious principles about decency, as well as those pesky martial arts ideas about avoiding violence, treating people decently, and protecting the weak and helpless.

If you've got a point to make, then dont beat about the bush with it. I'm not sure what your points are in this paragraph. Religion begets decency? All people deserve decent treatment and only martial artists can deliver it? Where are you going with this?

One can only suggest that we do unto you what was done to helpless prisoners, and then recheck this whole triviality argument.

If I was in the situation those prisoners were in, I would consider it fair play. I would not have my side behead their prisoners and then expect decent treatment at the hands of my enemies. Especially when I refuse to play by the rules of war in the first place.

By the way, we've also shot down airliners, machine gun and rocketed weddings and school buses filled with kids. Waddya think--triviality, or just an oopsie or two?

This is war. Mistakes happen. What is your point? Better their civilians than our troops.

At what point is it, pray tell, that torture becomes significant? At what point is it that you begin to at least wonder about your government devising the theory and practice of torture, getting tame lawyers and judges to OK it, and then going out and actually employing torture--oh, silly me, "duress,"--as a considered, settled policy?

Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests. In the case of torture, this doesnt take much, since graphic images leaked to the press cause massive unrest in the voting populace at home, the troops at war, and the population of the enemy.

 

[Adept]

There is what the law states, and what is 'right'. The law may allow for certain actions, but that still doesn't make it right to actually perform those actions.

Agreed. I would continue that each person must decide, individually, what they consider to be right. Even if that choice is just to adhere to someone elses pre-made decisions (in the case of societal or religious codes, for example).

 

[RandomPhantom700]

In the case of torture, this doesnt take much, since graphic images leaked to the press cause massive unrest in the voting populace at home, the troops at war, and the population of the enemy.

Gee, I wonder why that would be? Could it be that the use of torture to extract information is stupid, wrong, and completely hypocritical of a country that's trying to portray itself as a home for civil rights? Or are we no longer doing that?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Whew. One was wondering when we'd get rid of those tired, worn-out religious principles about decency, as well as those pesky martial arts ideas about avoiding violence, treating people decently, and protecting the weak and helpless.

I've asked you before, I'll ask you again, and I'm sure you'll ignore me again like before, but why the hell do you keep saying "one" rather than, oh I don't know, "I"?

Completely off topic, but....oh who cares.

 

[michaeledward]

Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests.

Personally, I find there is just so much, that is so wrong with your analysis of the situation, that it is terrifying.

How many photos of female American Soldiers sexually humiliating, degrading and abusing male Iraqi detainees do you think it will take to turn the 1 Billion faithful Muslems' against the 280 million American citizens? Regardless of how many mosque's we don't bomb?

Let us assume the Billion Hindu's on the planet keep a neutral position (fat chance), the 39 athiests on the planet turn back to their Carl Sagan texts, that the 500 million Christians in Europe stay pre-occupied with their secular interests, and that the Pope, in his infirmaty, keeps the South American Catholics quietly disapproving of the United States actions.

Even then ... let's review ... best case 4.75 Billion people sit on the sidelines watching; 1 Billion Muslems' 280 Million Americans.

Don't you think that 1 photograph will 'impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests?' Are you familiar with Lt Colonel Custer?

I do. This is a disaster in the making. Fortuneately, the new United States Attorney General (nominee) is strongly in favor of torture, signed the memos that informed the president such actions would be legal. Good Grief.

Just a note to Robert ... I think the issue is Robert, we lost. But, I'm still with you.

Mike

 

[Adept]

Gee, I wonder why that would be? Could it be that the use of torture to extract information is stupid, wrong, and completely hypocritical of a country that's trying to portray itself as a home for civil rights?

The funny thing about hypocrites; they are still right. Not really relevant, but there it is.

It stirs up such emotion because its graphic. Thats all, really. Images like that are easily manipulated (if such is necessary) by the relevant media. Any anti-war movements seize them and parade them around with little or no actual care for the 'victims of abuse'.

The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted. If you save the lives of ten people, is it worth pulling the fingernails from one person? Is it worth flaying ten men alive to save the lives of one thousand?

The problem is the quality of the information extracted under torture is often lacking. Things like sleep deprivation, non-physical threats, mental 'duress' as it was called before, are much more effective. They break down the mental barriers a person might erect and you get much better intel.

Or are we no longer doing that?

We were never doing that. Strip away all the hubris and political posturing, and the only reason a country ever goes to war is to protect its interests.

 

[Adept]

How many photos of female American Soldiers sexually humiliating, degrading and abusing male Iraqi detainees do you think it will take to turn the 1 Billion faithful Muslems' against the 280 million American citizens? Regardless of how many mosque's we don't bomb?

If it came to a racial war, you can guarantee the western powers would be on the winning side. 1 billion muslims armed with outdated equipment, no significant airforce or navy, no ICBMs, and no longer with the protection of being 'civilians'. In one fell swoop we could glass the entire middle east into non-existance. The US could, and would, round up every muslim in its borders and summarily execute them. Once you dont have to sort the terrorist from the civilian, it becomes real easy. You just kill them all. The western powers have the means and we assume that in such a scenario, the will also.

However, these photos have been circulating for some time. They clearly have not motivated the entire muslim population into militancy, nor will they in the forseeable future.

Don't you think that 1 photograph will 'impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests?' Are you familiar with Lt Colonel Custer?

Custer of little big horn fame? Its not an area I'm familiar with. How does it relate to the issue at hand?

I do. This is a disaster in the making. Fortuneately, the new United States Attorney General (nominee) is strongly in favor of torture, signed the memos that informed the president such actions would be legal. Good Grief.

Its a disaster that has come and gone, with (relatively) minor repurcussions.

I will take the time now to clarify my post. I do NOT advocate a race war of any degree. Far too many innocent people would die, and the world would change dramatically as a result.

I do NOT approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG. As you have stated, and I have agreed, the political fallout from this event had the potential to be huge. Thankfully it wasnt.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. One grew tired of repeated personal attacks and mean-spirited insults, as well as constant silly diagnoses, and chose a more-impersonal viewpoint as well as a more-imperial and pseudo-objective tone.

2. One's point in reference to moral standards in religion and martial arts was that those espousing moral standards in religion and in martial arts should perhaps at times try to live up to them, no matter how inconvenient such standards appear to be in the short run. Indeed, one was suggesting that perhaps the most-cogent reason for principles is this: abandoning principles in the name of expediency is damaging not merely to the "enemy," but to oneself.

3. Good to see old Uncle Joe Stalin's logic--you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs--adopted by Americans. Good to see that air attacks on weddings can be written off as the sort of oopsies that Happen in War.

4. Marvellous to see the old mistake--means are justified by ends--deployed once again. One would worry about finding common moral ground with, say, the Nazis, but wotthell.

5. The essential error committed in the name of pragmatism is this: short term military advantages gained by torture--and make no mistake; "duress," and all the rest are mere euphemisms and what is under discussion is in fact torture as defined not merely by the UN, but by our own American codes of justice including the UCMJ--are always, always, always, more than outweighted by a) the corrupting effect upon one's own troops, b) the unreliability of such information, c) the creation of anger in the civilian population.

6. We tried all this stuff in Vietnam. How'd that work out for us? The French played these games in Vietnam and Algeria, which is why France still has all its overseas colonies...oops, wait, forgot. They don't. The Japanese did all this and worse in WWII...how'd that go? And on, and on, back through history, back through the murdering bastard Crusaders who cheerfully slaughtered Christians when they couldn't get Muslims... apparently, those who remember the past have now started arguing for cheerfully repeating its mistakes. Why even bother with the work of forgetting, when we can simply rationalize?

7. Perhaps a re-viewing of Bruce Lee's movies is in order. Why? Well, again and again, and again, Lee's movies tell viewers that might does not make right, that making a buck is inferior to fighting for the weak and helpless, that mere technique always loses out to a good heart....but then, a martial artist should know already what's wrong with the claim that, "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."

8. Always good to see, "human nature," cited as the last best defense of evil, the ultimate excuse for whatever rottenness we come up with...including swaggering assertions of being able to nuke 'em all, papered over with a good thumpin' denegation. As in claiming that, "I do NOT advocate a race war of any degree...I do NOT approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG," while of course, on the other hand, "The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted," and that's all that counts.

9. Used, "we," because one suspects that all of us are equally guilty, on some level, of these same arguments and logics. The hope of religion, and the hope of martial arts, is that there are better ways.

 

[Adept]

2. One's point in reference to moral standards in religion and martial arts was that those espousing moral standards in religion and in martial arts should perhaps at times try to live up to them, no matter how inconvenient such standards appear to be in the short run. Indeed, one was suggesting that perhaps the most-cogent reason for principles is this: abandoning principles in the name of expediency is damaging not merely to the "enemy," but to oneself.

I have never outlined my own moral guides here for perusal, as I'm sure the soldiers at AG havent. How relevant is this? The west is secular, not religious, and the moral standards in MA I find to be so much rhetoric.

3. Good to see old Uncle Joe Stalin's logic--you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs--adopted by Americans. Good to see that air attacks on weddings can be written off as the sort of oopsies that Happen in War.

Just because a bad man said it, doesnt make it a lie. In war, mistkaes happen. That is all there is to it. We dont go about deliberately bombing weddings and such. The only alternative is to never attack anythig for fear of making a mistake. I'm sure you can see how practical that would be during an armed conflict.

4. Marvellous to see the old mistake--means are justified by ends--deployed once again. One would worry about finding common moral ground with, say, the Nazis, but wotthell.

One of the least understood phrases in history. Of COURSE the ends justify the means. They are the only thing that ever can. Lets take a look at a few simple examples:

1 - Breaking into a car is bad. But it is justified if a baby has been locked inside on a hot day.

2 - Hurting someone is bad. But it is justified if it is self defense or the defense of another.

3 - Killing pets is bad. But it is justified if the pet is suffering from a terminal problem.

What the phrase you quoted above MEANS to say is "The ends do not justify ANY means". to whit, if a mugger comes at you on the street, you cannot knock him unconscious, chain-saw his legs off and then hunt down his family. The ends DO justify the means, but they do not justify ANY means.

5. The essential error committed in the name of pragmatism is this: short term military advantages gained by torture--and make no mistake; "duress," and all the rest are mere euphemisms and what is under discussion is in fact torture as defined not merely by the UN, but by our own American codes of justice including the UCMJ--are always, always, always, more than outweighted by a) the corrupting effect upon one's own troops, b) the unreliability of such information, c) the creation of anger in the civilian population.

I agree whoelheartedly. When the level and quality of information is too poor, and the negative impacts on the political siutation too great, then torture is a negative thing. Obviously the 'abuse' dealt out at AG was not done with an eye to gathering intel, and the impact on the political situation could have been massive. Thus I disapprove.

[snip irrelevant points about past mistakes]

7. Perhaps a re-viewing of Bruce Lee's movies is in order. Why? Well, again and again, and again, Lee's movies tell viewers that might does not make right, that making a buck is inferior to fighting for the weak and helpless, that mere technique always loses out to a good heart....but then, a martial artist should know already what's wrong with the claim that, "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."

Aye aye aye! What on earth are you talking about?! First note - Movies are not reality. Second note - Most of Bruce's movies revolved around technical and physical superiority. He was always the 'good' guy because that is what sells movies. I could say the same thing about the TMNT movies, or about Voltron, or Starwars...

Why dont you spell out for me exactly what is wrong with the claim that "Torture becomes significantly 'wrong' once it begins to impair the ability of a nation to protect its interests."

8. Always good to see, "human nature," cited as the last best defense of evil, the ultimate excuse for whatever rottenness we come up with...including swaggering assertions of being able to nuke 'em all, papered over with a good thumpin' denegation.

I can only assume you refer to me when using the word 'evil' in your above post. How am I using human nature to defend my position?

As in claiming that, "I do NOT advocate a race war of any degree...I do NOT approve of the 'abuse' of the prisoners at AG," while of course, on the other hand, "The morality of the use of 'torture' (and I still dont see much of what happened at AG as torture) to extract information is relevant to the level and accuracy of the information extracted," and that's all that counts.

That is all that counts, for me. There was no information extracted, and massive potential for harm. Why should I approve of that? I still dont view the treatment of those prisoners as abuse. Not when compared to the treatment of western prisoners in Iraq.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I still dont view the treatment of those prisoners as abuse. Not when compared to the treatment of western prisoners in Iraq.

When is abuse or torture relative?

 

[Adept]

When is abuse or torture relative?

Everything is morally relative. This thread is a perfect example, really. I consider the abuse suffered at AG to be of a light nature. Others consider it to be very, very serious and wrong. Who among us can claim moral superiority and tell the other side they are wrong, just because we say so?

It is best to let everyone have their opinion, and not try to tell others how to think.

 

[Tgace]

Everything is morally relative. This thread is a perfect example, really. I consider the abuse suffered at AG to be of a light nature. Others consider it to be very, very serious and wrong. Who among us can claim moral superiority and tell the other side they are wrong, just because we say so?

It is best to let everyone have their opinion, and not try to tell others how to think.

I dont know if I can entirely agree with that. At some point we have to decide that something is "wrong". Relativism is a cheap way to sublimate a lot of evil stuff. Who were we to say Hitler was "wrong".....

We cant tell others what "to think" but we should stand by what we belive to be right and fight what we believe to be wrong. Anybody of signifigance does that. The world is full of a lot of wishy washy nobodies who never made a stand on anything.....

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree with "tgrace;" there are indeed some moral choices which are not relative, but absolute. We would probably reach that conclusion by different routes--but the agreement remains.

One is a bit shocked to see someone of a conservative/right-wing political bent adopting precisely the notion of complete moral relativism that is so often attributed to leftists. But then, he's made his moral principles quite clear: anything is justified in terms of expediency and personal interest. Indeed, the moral precepts of martial arts are to him a bunch hot air. Odd, given that whatever else Bruce Lee's films make clear, it is that violence--and victory--always rest upon decency, upon honor, upon choosing the morally-correct side.

It's a pity to see folks adopting one of the central tenets of modern capitalism--only productivity matters, as though they'd thought it up as a, "liberating," choice. No doubt he will feel that his are not so much, "principles," as they are simple acceptances of an imaginary "Nature," and an invented, "reality."

One sees that there's a little cherry-picking of discourse: it was not said that torture was wrong merely because it didn't work. (Of course, if one argues that torture is a) OK, and b) useless, then one has just adopted the the rather peculiar position of saying that sadism is perfectly OK.) It was also noted that torture has, inevitably, a corrupting effect upon torturers and their society.

If one chooses to espouse the notion that torture is perfectly OK provided it works, and does not "damage the national interests," or whatever other ugly rationalization for sadism as national policy seems appropriate, well, all that can be said is, congrats on rediscovering the same sort of evil--and that is exactly the right word--that has animated far too many of the worst moments in human history.

Regrettably, this country has gone around deliberately bombing civilians on more than one occasion in the last century or so. Try an Internet search on the following topics: "Colonel Chivington," "Dresden;" "Tokyo Fire Raids, 1944," "Bach Mai Hospital," "Christmas bombings, Vietnam," and a few others. No doubt you will simply rationalize them away as regrettable military necessities. But others of us prefer Freeman Dyson's analysis of the relationships between mass bombing and industrial productivity to illusions.

"Intel." Ah, the deployment of pseudo-technical language in support of torture! One recommends the first chapter of Paul Fussell, "The Great War and Modern Memory." But then too, the explicit justification offered by our government and part of our military was that "physical coercion," at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, was essential to collecting intelligence. Perhaps it would be as well to read up on the arguments of one's own side, before attempting to justify them...

As for the claim that it's all just differences of opinions, well, congrats on being so realistic that dumping every moral tenet seems reasonable. To quote the American teacher Stanley Fish, "Students ought to be told to leave their opinions at home when they start college."

Let me try and answer your question: torture is wrong because a) it never really works; b) it antagonizes the attacked population; c) it corrupts the torturers and their society; d) it violates all the moral rules there are; e) it is against the explicit, repeatedly-stated positions of this country as well as the Geneva Accords. Note: neither our Constitution nor the Hague accords offer exceptions for the fifth-graders' excuses of, "Hey, THEY did it first!!"

Suggestion: find out who Telford Taylor was. Look up his brilliant, ringing words on what was wrong with the Nazis' ideas about torture and murder in the name of expediency. You live in a good country that has always had flashes of greatness. Would you like to know more?

Incidentally, it might be interesting to consider whether a scared, nineteen-year old soldier stuck out in the middle of the damn desert and under constant threat is as morally-culpable as the fat cats who sent them there.