Just thought this was interesting. This article basically confirms my first reation: so what? What was surprising to me was that more prisoner abuse stories hadn't come out earlier. And that the public is surprised. I guess when the evidence is pictures rather than rumors, it becomes difficult for the average American to continue immersed in the lie that they are some how more reasonable, more civilized than all then rest. What I don't understand is that some will still be willing to justify the invasion in moral terms. Is our memory so short?
Important points from the article IMHO: 1. West Point feels the need to include cases where orders were not followed in their Cadet training. 2. A young lady soldier from West Virginia is capable of commiting (within the limits of her power) the same violations of human rights as Saddam Husein. 3. The point of the article as it is written seems to be "Torture is okay". Am I alone here in thinking that torture cannot effectively answer torture, and that the invasion was from the beginning without moral justification ? Where is USA Today's moral compass?
Bry
Top Stories - USATODAY.com
Abuse less shocking in light of history
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
One of the most surprising things about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers is that so many Americans are surprised.
Decades of research and eons of history point to one conclusion: Under certain circumstances, most normal people will treat their fellow man with abnormal cruelty. The schoolboys' descent into barbarism in William Golding's classic The Lord of the Flies is fiction that contains a deeper truth.
And from Andersonville to the "Hanoi Hilton," no combination of circumstances turns us against our better nature faster than the combination of war and prison, whether we are acting on orders or on our own.
Charles Figley, a Florida State University psychologist who studied the experiences of 1,000 U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War, describes himself as "shocked about people being shocked" by the reports from Iraq (news - web sites).
"About 25% of the vets I've talked to either participated in, witnessed, or were aware of violations of the Geneva Conventions" in Vietnam, he says.
whole story
Important points from the article IMHO: 1. West Point feels the need to include cases where orders were not followed in their Cadet training. 2. A young lady soldier from West Virginia is capable of commiting (within the limits of her power) the same violations of human rights as Saddam Husein. 3. The point of the article as it is written seems to be "Torture is okay". Am I alone here in thinking that torture cannot effectively answer torture, and that the invasion was from the beginning without moral justification ? Where is USA Today's moral compass?
Bry
Top Stories - USATODAY.com
Abuse less shocking in light of history
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
One of the most surprising things about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers is that so many Americans are surprised.
Decades of research and eons of history point to one conclusion: Under certain circumstances, most normal people will treat their fellow man with abnormal cruelty. The schoolboys' descent into barbarism in William Golding's classic The Lord of the Flies is fiction that contains a deeper truth.
And from Andersonville to the "Hanoi Hilton," no combination of circumstances turns us against our better nature faster than the combination of war and prison, whether we are acting on orders or on our own.
Charles Figley, a Florida State University psychologist who studied the experiences of 1,000 U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War, describes himself as "shocked about people being shocked" by the reports from Iraq (news - web sites).
"About 25% of the vets I've talked to either participated in, witnessed, or were aware of violations of the Geneva Conventions" in Vietnam, he says.
whole story