scaring a suspect with no intention of actually harming them is rather different to using a black and decker and lumps of rock.
the question for the colonel in the news is: what would he have done had the suspect given no information, or information that the colonel beleived to be incorrect?
moreover, i presume the colonel then made some change of plan or initated some operation effectively on the say so of a terrorist suspect with no corroberating evidence. interesting...
the colonels defence is a dichotomy: he's saying that he didn't hurt the bloke and didn't mean to, that the bloke was 'just a bit scared'. however, he felt confident enough in the information gleaned to send his troops off on an unplanned, unpracticed operation. would anyone be confident enough in the first 'confession' of a terrorist suspect that due to time constraints couldn't be analysed or corroborated and who was 'just a bit scared' to send troops into a potential ambush?



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote

Share this thread with friends: