On Torture in Combat

As you know, a recent study came out that indicated about 4 in 10 Marines would be willing to torture someone in order to save the life of a buddy. And of course, the pundits on both sides have gone to town, as have the talking heads ad infinitum.

I think people are on about two different things though.

Some individuals conclude from the article that roughly one out of two marines "favor torture". Oh my gosh they're all mercenary killers, drama +++.

Other people, myself included, see that the article is talking about physical abuse of battlefield detainees IN ORDER TO SAVE A LIFE. It's that whole SAVE A LIFE thing that sets it apart. And not just any life, but the life of a combat soldier they personally know.

So here's a question for everyone. Would you burn someone with a cigarette on their arm in order to SAVE THE LIFE of your parents or children, or brothers or sisters?

If you would, then Oh my gosh YOU favor torture too you mercenary killer you! If not, then really, you've not much of a family have you.

Or would you honestly sacrifice THEIR lives for YOUR principles?

In which case you are REALLY fucked up, and, selfish as all hell to boot.

The point here is not to try and logic trap you into a choice you wouldn't make under ordinary circumstances. The point is to try and communicate that there is systemic government sponsored torture with written reports, videos made, dedicated facilities, procedures and the like. Then there is beating or burning someone in order to extract information needed SPECIFICALLY to SAVE A LIFE IMMEDIATELY. One is not justifiable. The other can be. At least in the eyes of 1 out of 2 Marines, and others here in the country. Myself included.

Because if you actually read the report for yourself, that's what the question references. Saving a buddys life in combat. In combat, a "buddy" isn't your neighbor who lets you borrow his pruning shears. It's not someone in another unit, or army. It's someone you know personally. The person who rides next to you in the vehicle, who sleeps next to you and snores like a motherfucker, who showers in the portable tent 2ft away from you. The one who reaches over you to grab the salt at the DFAC or who you trade m&ms with out of your MRE bag.

He's also the guy that provided covering fire for you yesterday so you could get out of the bad position, or who kicked in a door so you didn't have to. He's the one who shot the badguy who had the draw on you, or the one that poured water over your head to check for dings after the last grenade went off a tad close.

Would you torture to save his life?

With the relationship as described, I bet many of you would. Because that's what a combat "Buddy" is. The HBO series about combat "buddies" in WWII is aptly titlesd (and based on the book) Band of Brothers. This is the level of relationship we are talking about. In fact, I bet some of those who are most decrying this "report" (really a just a survey) would be the first to do so. In fact, I suspect the 46% of Marines who said they wouldn't were probably lying to avoid the bullshit the question inspires.

It's a rare circumstance. US Soldiers don't fall into enemy hands often. When they do we will move heaven and earth to recover them. If that means captured badguys have a few cigarette burns, and an otherwise bad day, then oh-fucking-well. No one saw anything, no one has any idea how it happened, and no one is going to be prosecuted. All we know is we got our buddy back. We got our family back. And we don't really care about the rest.

Distinctions of right and wrong are simply much more vague on the battlefield. They always have been down throughout the history of man (and battlefields) If you cannot understand that, then the point of the discussion (and the original question) is simply lost on you.

Regards,
-Bouncer-