Ex-Soldier Steven Green Faces Possible Death Penalty

Steven Green was convicted of the murders of the Al-Janabi family in Iraq and rape of the eldest daughter. He faces life in prison indefinitely and the death penalty is not an out of the question sentence. Green was a soldier in Iraq and had plotted this attack with three or four other soldier who knew about it and were involved in it. I find this absolutely horrifying. These are the people out there defending our country? Representing our country? Fighting for our country and the very idea of America? The article actually refers to the assault as a war atrocity, which I find extremely fitting in our war unit that just ended. This situation immediately reminded me of so many of the artifacts we read over the course of the unit. The fact that war makes things "foggy" and morality pretty much goes out the window. There is no longer a line between right and wrong because of the shock and all the awful things occuring on a regular basis. I don't think this justifies anything. Morality cannot be brushed to the side. Rape and murder is far from fighting for your country and killing in battle. This atrocity had nothing to do with the war. He deserves the harshest sentence possible. The fact that there were multiple soldiers involved also makes me uneasy. What has this war come to? Just because a person is "used to" killing soldiers, which i do not think is possible but hypothetically, that still doesn't have anything to do with rape. That has nothing to do with killing innocent civilians who did nothing wrong. Nothing justifies that. What does this say about the war? What is provoking this? What makes these soldiers think that this is justified? And that goes back to a central question in the unit: what sort of killing really is justified?

Poll Indicates 1 in 5 Americans Support Torture

I found an article today that really struck interesting regarding American citizens' views on torture. In fact, a recent poll indicated that six out of ten Americans think that the procedures and measures that the FBI is going to to get information is necessary. I think a big part of this opinion is fear. When people don't have information and there are terrorists out there, they fear for their lives and may accuse people who may be innocent. When there is fear, people act on it and it is not always the most rational action. We discussed waterboarding in class and in this article 64% of people polled did not consider it a form of torture. Does drowning someone on the brink of death NOT considered torture? What about the "suspected" terrorists who really are not involved in terrorist organizations? But then again, if we don't use different procedures to extract information, how will we ever get it? 57% of Americans do not want Bush Administration officers to be investigated for authorizing these procedures, because they feel it is a necessary means of finding out the real terrorists. But really, who says we will get truthful information that isn't tampered with and distorted? It is a very hard topic to decipher right from wrong, and which procedures are humane and which are not. The dilemma remains as to how to deal with terrorists how to get valid information. With everything going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran right now, the Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations need to be deciphered and understood. These alleged terrorists are one of the United States' only means of obtaining knowledge. But does that mean torture when there is not substantial evidence? Obama is working hard to aid Pakistan and Afghanistan in their path toward democracy to defeat Al Qaeda, but what are the limits? Where is the point where we become too involved? Wheres the line between humane and inhumane?