| The last question was answered in just | 1 | minute Let our thousands of members help! |
Welcome to Answerbag, a community of people sharing what they know.
Sort answers by:
Rating |
Date
Top Answer out of 8 by Anonymous on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:27 pm Permalink
Comments
(be the first to comment)
Answer 2 out of 8 by downtide on Oct 23, 2009 at 2:20 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Jadey ,if that is the case,I've never seen documentation. That doesn't mean that the policy doesn't exist, since my duties never involved prisoner interrogation. If it was official policy, then I would have to state that I was ashamed to wear the uniform of a nation that ordered such practices. I agree with you that such practices, when publicized, actually create more resistance to the military forces. I was taught that information obtained by torture is of little value, since a person under such treatment will tell the interrogator whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
Well exactly. This is what made me doubt the truth behind claims that it is policy. Why have a policy which is proven to be ineffective at best and counter productive at worst? If I remember rightly though, Gray said that it is mostly not done to extract information and intelligence at all. Saying that the US may torture one person to gain info which may protect national security is, he claims, a lie. He said that by allowing, and guiding, the public to debate whether torture is morally permissible in terms of intelligence acquisition, we are distracted from debating the real issue - is it right or wrong to torture at all? I don't want to believe that what he says is true. I would want that even less if I were American.
That's exactly correct,Jadey.
Answer 3 out of 8 by Jadey - Vive la difference on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:25 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Unfortunately, in practice, some organization "scapegoat" the most junior soldier to cover for the unlawful order of a superior, Shouldn't happen but it does :-(
Keeping my fingers crossed for you!
That's a real shame, I guess thats the way of the world though.
Thanks =) Answer 4 out of 8 by Hardcore Conservative on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:17 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
As a veteran myself, I conducted myself according to the laws of war.
Proving my point, the morality of bombing Hiroshima and Nagaski was a moral decision left to the politicians, not the troops. You should know that the art of war on the ground is a dirty, bloody business and sometimes morals go right out the window when it comes down to saving your ass from being killed.
I understand. Been there, done that, 2 clusters on my Heart. My remarks related to the wanton killing of civilians such as occurred in Iraq. Troops lose a comrade in an ambush, wipe out a village in retaliation. UNSAT conduct. Failure of leadership.
If you're talking about the "alleged" Haditha incident, you're a little off. Everyone involved has been found not guilty except two. Charges were dropped against one and another is still pending (after 4 years).
Answer 5 out of 8 by TheJoker on Oct 23, 2009 at 2:04 am Permalink
Comments
(be the first to comment)
Answer 6 out of 8 by Marinein09 on Oct 26, 2009 at 7:31 pm Permalink
Comments
(be the first to comment)
Answer 7 out of 8 by alvaro on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:21 pm Permalink
Comments
(be the first to comment)
Answer 8 out of 8 by Geo is a graphic TROLL on Oct 26, 2009 at 12:28 pm Permalink
Comments
(be the first to comment)
Important: Answerbag cannot guarantee the accuracy of answers submitted by members, and we recommend that you use common sense when following any advice found here. Read full disclaimer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

