No, I really don't think they're operating in the same reality, Dana.
The question is when psychological warfare is needed in military interrogation -- When do the means justify the ends? Was this the case here? Was there some vital piece of information they were trying to get from these people when they were humiliating them? From what I've seen/heard, it looked like they were just having "fun."
I don't think you can compare the two acts, though. Though psychological torture has many harmful effects on the person, murder is still far worse, even if you choose to call it by another name ("militancy"). It's possible to recover (to some degree) from psychological torture. It's possible to rebuild the self. Murder is total destruction. In Pirkei Avos (Chapters of the Fathers), it says, "He who saves a life saves a world. He who destroys a life destroys a world."
(BTW, next time anyone sees a murder being committed, I think we should say, "Officer, arrest that man for militancy." Or it could be, "Officer, arrest that man for freedom fighting.")
Judith
> "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner"
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-12-rumsfeld_x.htm
>
> I know I am harping on this. I'd rather the whole thing went away too. But... these people aren't operating in the same reality as the rest of us. Are they?
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
