You are a guest monitoring a host nation training activity being conducted by a host nation military officer who is preparing younger officers for operations in support of law enforcement, such as protection of a prison perimeter during a police raid to quell an inmate riot. the instructor describes a scenario in which soldiers on the perimeter capture a fleeing inmate and are holding him for turnover to police custody. the instructor suggests that because the police are preoccupied, the soldiers would be permitted to aggressively interrogate the inmate about other inmates who may have planned the riot, using death threats to intimidate the suspect. some of the students turn and look at you quizzically, as if trying to ascertain your opinion on the matter. what do you do?

Politely ask the instructor for clarification on national laws regarding military authorities in such missions, and also on the interrogation method described, given its human rights implications. Report the problematic training to your chain of command.

Explanation:

At such circumstances , we need to judge the instructor based on the actual military law that applicable rather than relying on our personal feeling. So, first thing we need to do is to find out whether what being thought by that instructor is the proper protocol according to military law

If the answer is no, then we can start to involve third party organization such as human rights watch or the pers in order to held the instructor accountable.

the awnser is that is tru your

lol bye

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.