TED Community » William Kelly

Comments

• TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Talk: Stephen Coleman: The moral dangers of non-lethal weapons

  Feb 25 2012: In regards to Armed Forces using "Less than Lethal" weapons. These systems are used exclusively in actions that are identified as OTW (Other Than War). Soldiers are taught to shoot to kill, not to wound or maim, this eliminates the lethal threat to themselves and others. In operations designed to kill or capture HVT (High Value Targets) the use of Flash/ Stun grenades are used to confuse - temporarily blind - or incapacitate individuals who may be armed in an area not visible to the soldier before entering an area.
  
  The use of OC/ Concussion/ Flash Grenades in lieu of fragmentation grenades is an attempt to prevent civillian casualties in a fluid and dynamic situation. US Soldiers more often than not, seek to mitigate civillian casualties as much as possible, often placing themselves in greater danger. Soldiers train in cultural awareness to prevent mis-understandings that can result in an unnecessary use of lethal force, and are taught ROE's (Rules Of Engagement) that dictate the situations in which force can be used, and to what level that force can be escalated to - from removing forces from the area, ensuring weapons are pointed to the ground, firing rounds in the air, to the use of lethal fire.
  
  The use of non-lethal force by soldiers is a result of combat forces being used in a non-traditional and incompatible way in "nation building" operations. Soldiers ARE NOT a police force, they are trained and drilled in warfare. Modern soldiers use police-like tactics in trying to capture those identified as enemy combatants, however their first and primary goal is to find, fix, and destroy, by any means, opposing forces. Combat forces are for combat, and the limited number of forces trained in actual policing (i.e. Army Military Police and Air Force Security Forces) shows the fallacy in trying to make the US Armed Forces a police force in an occupied area.

• A comment on Conversation: Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?

  Jan 21 2012: Truth is essential in reporting. Truth in reporting must be unbiased, unflinching, and without reproach. As Albert Einstein said "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Unless a newspaper is devolving into a gossip column on daily events, it must uphold the basic tenant of journalism.
  
  On the website "Journalism.org" the first Principle of Journalism is :
  " Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context."
  
  This should not be a hard question, although the term vigilante indicates a desire or need to meet out punishment to those perceived to be wrong-doers, which is inflammatory, and negates the idea of unbiased journalistic integrity.