One in three US combat troops would condone torture: survey

[IChing]

Source: AFP

A survey of US combat troops deployed in Iraq has found that one in 10 said they mistreated civilians and more than a third condoned torture to save the life of a comrade, a report said Friday.

The study by an army mental health advisory team found continuing problems with morale and that acute mental health issues were more prevalent among troops with lengthening tours or on their second and third deployment to Iraq.

"They looked under every rock, and what they found was not always easy to look at," said Ward Casscells, the Pentagon's health affairs chief.

For the first time ever, a sampling of soldiers and marines in combat units were questioned on issues of character, and their answers suggested hardened attitudes toward civilians among front line troops:

-- About 10 percent of soldiers surveyed reported mistreating non-combatants or damaging their property when it was not necessary;

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/One_in_three_US_combat_troops_would_05042007.html

[Straight Shooter]

1. That is not a surprising sentiment.

Quote: More than a third of all soldiers and marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or marine.

It seems to me the basic question is, If you believe the torture will save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine, is the torture acceptable?

We're not talking about torture to gain so-called "intelligence," here. This is a very personal issue, do you accept torture if it means your friend's life will be spared. Everyone has to decide in her or his own heart the answer to such a question.

[harpboy_ak]

11. No decision required

This is a very personal issue, do you accept torture if it means your friend's life will be spared. Everyone has to decide in her or his own heart the answer to such a question.

Bull Pucky! TORTURE IS ILLEGAL ***AND*** IMMORAL.

In addition to the fact that it DOES NOT WORK. Torture gets the torturer the answer he wants to hear, not the truth. It's been proved over and over and over, but brute force advocates just don't get it.

Besides, it's illegal, period. And immoral under any moral *or* religious code I've ever read, ranking close to rape and murder.

You don't have to decide, it's simply wrong.

[Rage for Order]

12. Then I suppose it's safe to assume that...

If you were given the option of having your child, parent, spouse/SO, or sibling killed in front of you or having their life spared by torturing someone with whom you have no personal relationship, you would choose to let your loved one die? A simple yes or no answer on that question please. If torture is illegal and immoral, period, then I suppose your loved one would have to die for the greater good?

Obvously the real world is never this black or white, but that certainly appears to be the way the question was worded.

And for the record, if I had to decide between torturing someone I didn't know and letting my daughter be killed, I agree with you: "No decision required". My daughter would live. If I'm "simply wrong" for not preferring to save my child's life over the life of someone I do not know, then so be it.

[YankeyMCC]

2. US Iraq troops 'condone torture'

Source: BBC

(snip)
The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.
(snip)

(snip)
Troops suffering from anxiety, depression or stress were more likely to engage in unethical behaviour, together with those who had had a colleague wounded or killed in their unit.
(snip)

(snip)
A key recommendation to emerge was to shorten the tours of duty.

Those deployed longer than six months, or who had been to Iraq several times, were more likely to suffer from mental health problems.

But presently thousands of extra troops are being sent to Iraq as part of an offensive to try to curb the insurgency by October.

Tours are being extended, and units that do go home are being allowed less time to recover before being sent back.
(snip)


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6627055.stm

[melody]

3. If that was the BBC's headline, they should be ashamed of themselves

The majority of US soldiers do *not* condone torture.

[atreides1]

4. Not talking about them

The report is about those who do condone torture. I'm not overly concerned about the ones who know what's right, I'm concerned about the ones who are no better in their thinking then the enemy that they're supposed to be fighting against.

Now maybe they can ask them this question:

Are you more loyal to

1. The President

2. The Constitution


Personally I'm afraid of what the answer might be!

[melody]

5. If the headline read that way, it suggested all of them condone torture

I know it's popular to hate Yanks these days, but I think that's crossing the line. I have
always respected the Beeb's journalistic street cred, but maybe they too are following the herd.

I think we need to realize how many of these guys are kids in a very scary situation. I have
a nephew over there now. They are mentally and emotionally terrorized every day to keep them
at peak "efficiency".

I can tell you, just based on my nephew and his friends' opinions, they are very much behind the
Constitution. This President is as hated in their ranks as he is in the rest of the world.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. How about on themselves?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. War is hell they tell me ,I don't believe a fucking thing AFP tells me..

...I remember a few weeks ago on C-Span when a general stumbled for an answer to the question " what will it take to return troops to 12 month rotations? " the General looked behind him for help from seated staff ,after a good 20 seconds he blankly said " less demand " when asked to define less demand he said " less demand ".

[bahrbearian]

8. Does tha mean 66% do not condone torture?

[oneinok]

9. War is hell

War is hell and hell is full of heros.

Until you have been in combat don't attack the troops for the terror they are living.

[bahrbearian]

10. How was that attacking the troops?

[ShortnFiery]

13. It always depends on the wording of the question. But if true, no surprise

because CNN has just reported on GANGS within the Military. Now that's a profound failure of leadership. The troops deployed in Iraq can not be confident that there's anyone watching their backs as they take on the insurgents.

I fear that "the fraggings" are going to be awesome in a horrific way. :scared:

Thanks you evil Neo-Con rulers ... thanks for ruining OUR beloved Army that myself and my family members have proudly served in ... generations back to the Civil War era. :grr: :thumbsdown:

Hell, torture is the least of our Military Members worries (notable exception for those wrongly absconded) now. The loss of sound leadership has opened the door for all sorts of Gangland behaviors and ops ... way too complex to be sorted out by IMMORAL Leadership.

Mad Max Beyond Baghdad. :nuke:

[sanskritwarrior]

14. 14 years in the Army

I'm a Senior NCO and gangs are not as bad as they were from 1993-1996; there were Neo nazis, bloods, crips and Mexican mafia everywhere. Now hardly at all, gangs in the military being prevalent today is good copy, not reality.......