If I were in the military and Mr Bush gave me an order to torture someone, I would not do it. I would not give him that kind of authority over me. How about you?
2007-11-22 15:48:05 · 13 answers · asked by Starte Christ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
What secrets did Jose Padilla yield after his 4 years of torture?
(Try not to attack my person when I am only asking a simple question, although It does not bother me. It will help you in your own communications.)
2007-11-22 15:58:05 · update #1
Jose Padilla is now insane. What more proof do you want?
2007-11-22 16:15:46 · update #2
Some of you are not using critical thought. You have been following too long and seem a little lost in your intuitive and underused ability to see things clearly. Mr Bush ordered the unnecessary torture and subsequent insanity of Jose Padilla for his ego--nothing more.
2007-11-22 17:11:38 · update #3
I do not claim ownership of anything other than my thoughts. Mr Bush is not My anything.
2007-11-22 17:20:25 · update #4
No matter the consequence to me, If your commander-in-chief gave me (a hypo military member) an order to torture someone for any reason, I would not do it. That is where Mr Bush's authority would stop and mine continue. There is no law that any man could make to cause me to harm another, especially torture.
2007-11-23 06:18:41 · update #5
The time to disobey a direct order-no matter who it originates from-comes when you are asked to do something ethically or morally wrong, or asked to do something that puts lives at risk for no good reason. I would definitely disobey an order given to torture somebody, no matter who the person was or who was giving the order.
2007-11-22 16:10:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
No one is required to follow an illegal order. That said, the individual who relies on this principle needs to be very certain that what they have been ordered to do is, in fact, illegal.
Even then, there are right and wrong ways to go about doing things. Other courses of actions than refuals may be more appropriate, such as demanding the order in writing or executing the order anyway and then reporting it immediately on the opportunity to do so.
Your hypothetical concerning torture does not offer enough information to present a concrete answer.
In the case of Jose Padilla, you'll have to offer some positive evidence that he was in fact tortured. His allegations are insufficient as it is routine, and indeed, part of al Qaeda's training, to allege torture if they fall into US hands.
All who are insane have been tortured? You know somehow what it's clinical cause was, or even that it wasn't a condition predating his incarceration? Heck, I don't even know that he *is* insane. You do? Sorry, proves nothing.
2007-11-23 00:00:54 · answer #2 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
"Mr. Bush ordered the unnecessary torture and subsequent insanity of Jose Padilla for his ego--nothing more."
Its up to you to prove Mr. Bush ever gave an order approving torture.
Until then all you have here is a rant!!
2007-11-23 06:40:50 · answer #3 · answered by conranger1 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If torturing someone would stop another 911? If torturing someone would save 3 of your buddies? If torturing someone would save your mom, dad, sister, brother, son, daughter, wife, husband, pet or all of the above mentioned family members?
Do you think the Commander and Chief would ever get near a situation like that in the first place? You have to see that sometimes rough men will do thing that you see as wrong, you may even fear and despise these men and the things they do, but they do them in your benefit, they do them so you do not have to.
Me personally if I thought that if I tortured one person and could get information to protect American interest and lives by doing so, well I would.
I think you see the United States going around torturing people for fun and that is not happening.
2007-11-23 00:01:01 · answer #4 · answered by RaceNut17 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There's a reason why they have the term, "War is hell". If Mr. Bush gave an executive order, and I was in the military, I would follow it. If I join the military, I know what I'm signing up for. I am also aware of the "pecking" order....and the chain of command.
That being said, If evil is done upon our people, I have no problem with evil being reciprocated upon them. I do not advocate lawlessness, but, if you think about it, war used to mean that something was conquered.
And, I'm sorry, but, if you WERE in the military, then you automatically have given Mr. Bush THAT authority over you. Hence "Commander in chief".
2007-11-23 02:05:14 · answer #5 · answered by imrt70 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First I have to say that I am truly happy your not in the military.
And as far as answering to being given an order to torture someone. It isn't there. You can always, usually at your own detriment, refuse to follow what ever order you have been given. Especially if its considered by you the soldier to be wrong.
As far as him being given authority over you. He has only the authority authorized by the Constitution, and as President of these United States.
Once again truly happy to see that a person such as you isn't I'm the military today. We have far to many people sharp shooting the way this country is lead as it is. SO find something more constructive to do with your time than second guess the president of the U.S. because unless I am wrong its a position you are never going to find yourself in. SO stay a little closer to home with the decisions you choose to make about people and the way you choose to discuss them. If you haven't ever been in the position to benefit from the torture of an enemy then I suggest you shut your pie hole and go back to reading comic books or what ever else you do ...........
:) Have a nice Day and happy thanksgiving
2007-11-23 00:40:51 · answer #6 · answered by Groucho 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Torture works. If it didn't no one would do it. The simple ugly fact is torture works. Now don't be stupid here, you do not take what one person says under such circumstances as golden fact. You bounce that info off other known information and then you develope sound tactics and actionable info. If my President ordered me to torture some one I would RESPECT the PRESIDENCY because I know we do not torture for no reason. You are in the USA not the USSR.
2007-11-23 02:12:31 · answer #7 · answered by badbender001 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would obey any order failed to meets the requirements of a 'Lawful Order.'
In my 26 years of military service I was only given one unlawful order. And none of us remembered the fact that even though what we were doing was SOP - in this specific situation Federal law forbade what we were doing. Fortunately, the mistake was spotted before anything more serious than all of us being embarrassed occurred.
2007-11-23 01:11:13 · answer #8 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
does it matter what anyone says here you are only looking for a answer that will agree with you. like so many on here if anyone gives a answer that is not the one you want to hear you discount it no matter if it is a valid answer or not.
as for the answer to your question if it is a illegal order otherwise you are in the wrong for not obeying.
2007-11-23 10:30:44 · answer #9 · answered by darrell m 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So if you knew for a fact that the terrorist you were holding had pertinent info on the location of a bomb that was about to go off in the US you wouldn't torture. Only a complete fool would have that type of logic. You would rather see your fellow Americans die than to pull a few finger nails....
2007-11-22 23:52:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋