Is the media hurting the war?

Lets say that tomorrow a red cross worker, a journalist, and a few 18 year old American soldiers where to be found in Iraq tortured brutally. Is such a thing wrong, or was it simply nessesary for the gathering of information on the enemy (Americans)? I would say that its right on the mark from the side of the Iraq fighters. Outgunned and invaded by a foreign superpower. If they don't win this war they might all be speaking english someday! Does that give them the right to torture?Personally I am against any torture regardless of what one side considers nessesary.

In hopes that the next conflict does not have the same results; both sides resort to torture to get unreliable information.If for some bizarre reason the U.S. invaded Canada, based on what I have seen on the media, I would fully expect to get tortured if I got captured. This is the legacy that the U.S. has to contend with for the future. You say that "we should set a moral standard" - it has been set, and I would rather die than be captured by the american military. Scary stuff going on in dark corners.The reason for playing by the rules, or setting a high moral standard is that it has an impact on any future engagement.