Torture and Ethics

A couple recent incidents at the Infantry School have caused me to think more about torture in particular, and ethics among Army officers in general. Ethical vignettes are a (small) part of the curriculum at Infantry BOLC. These include the now familiar "Fall of the Warrior King," and the less familiar decision by a SEAL team in Afghanistan to not kill some goatherds that stumbled upon their position in the mountains during Operation Redwing.
The first incident was the discussion of "Fall of the Warrior King." What troubled me was that COL Sassaman's decision to lie to his superiors was the only action that was universally regarded as immoral. I don't see much value in rehashing this very well documented and much discussed event, but the lack of recognition by many of my classmates of the moral issues of throwing detainees off a bridge was disturbing, as were the, 'Fadhil probably faked his death for propaganda reasons,' and 'had the soldiers simply shot the cousins no one would have said anything' excuses.
Then there was the story that one of our NCOs told us while sitting around the proverbial campfire of what could cheritibly be described as questionable treatment of an Iraqi detainee. Again, the only thing worse than the story itself was the reaction of my peers, which could generally be characterized as 'Haha, got that (insert racial epithet here) good.'
I don't think there's much new or original I can add to the does-torture-work debate. The Atlantic has a number of pieces that are very good and accessible summaries of much of the debate. But the moral question surrounding torture is not nearly so ambiguous. Torture is wrong and it ought to have no place in American policy. Defining torture is not nearly so simple, but at a most basic level, inflicting physical pain to compel someone to reveal something undoubtably counts.
But torture is not what this post is about. What can we do to better instill good ethical judgement in American soldiers and officers? The stories of Colonel Sassaman and Abu Gharib were repulsive and damaging to America's reputation and interests, and it is frankly disturbing to imagine how many similar incidents have gone undiscovered or unreported.
As a firm believer in the 'it starts with me' approach, I think there is much that can be done at the company and platoon level. The use of racial and ethnic epithets--to include the most common term, hadji--must be banned by junior leaders and that ban must be enforced and its rationale explained. Furthermore, junior leaders must emphasize the common humanity between soldiers and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and live and represent that value at all times themselves.
What can be done at an Army-wide level? I think incorporating ethical vignettes into professional development courses starting with initial entry training is a start. But I think that weaving ethical dilemmas into all facets of training would make the lessons more effective. Put soldiers and leaders into situations where they are faced with an ethical dilemma, preferably without overtly presenting it as such. This would likely create far more poignent teachable moments than a discussion in a lecture hall ever could.
Ultimately though, can the Army reprogram in days, weeks, or even months, the values and moral compass that a person has already developed over years? That is what I find most unsettling.