Hello Earl,

On Fri 2037-May-22 14:05, Earl Croasmun (1:124/311) wrote to Richard Webb:

~> Indeed it has.  I keep coming back to just that point.  IF
~> we can prove that a technique gets us verifiable accurate
~> results, then with "enemy combatants" geneva conventions be
~> damned, let's rock 'n roll. 

EC> It is a matter of degrees and proportionality.  Even the act of
EC> arresting and handcuffing a terrorists will bring some degree of
EC> discomfort.  Detaining them means additional pain and suffering. 
EC> Same with making them eat prison food, frowning at them, yelling at
EC> them, and so on.  As the interrogation methods get more extreme, the
EC> justification for them has to be more compelling.  That is why the
EC> "enhanced interrogation" methods were used only after a lot of
EC> review of the potential value versus the level of discomfort they
EC> caused.  And the nutcases always ignore all the other techniques and
EC> rant endlessly about one interrogation technique that was used on a
EC> grand total of THREE terrorists in late 2002 and early 2003.  It got
EC> results, and it was found to have caused no prolonged pain or
EC> suffering by the medical professionals that monitored it.


Makes my point.  THat review has to be done though, and they should be able
to show this.   AS I said, I"m more concerned with how we deal with
human rights and freedoms for our
people.  NOt saying we shouldn't review those actions, but
let's have some perspective by the time that it's done.

SO some qaedas got treated rather badly.    DId we get some
other Qaedas we are going to be able to stand in the
dock?  Maybe we actually sent a few of them to meet Allah
with the information we got.  IF so I"m cool with that.
send the whole capital of SAudi ARabia to meet Allah and you wouldn't hurt
my feelings any.

DOes the end always justify the means?  MOst times not when
we cross those lines.   THE storekeeper in Miami who
electrically rigged his skylight to electrocute the next
jerk that broke in via that route couldn't walk on that one, but if he'd
been inside his store when they broke in he
could have blown the man away with a shotgun and said "I
felt I was in danger and was just defending myself," and
walked.
AGain the Grisham I used as an example.  Williamson was a
drug and alcohol addled dumb redneck.  EAsy to intimidate,
easy to confuse.  sPin him around in circles enough, then
tell him to find a corner to urinate in after you put him in a figurative
round room.  NO blows were struck, no bones
broken.  YEp, they got him to "voluntarily" say anything
they wanted him to, or that he thought they wanted himj to.
That's why the poor buffoon ended up getting off.  HE got
better lawyers, and the authorities at least had enough
sense not to capture his sessions on video.  YEs the scales
righted again, but had he not caught a lucky break they sure might not have.

EC> Fortunately Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are not following the
EC> nutcase line.  They both feel that a president must have the ability
EC> to order unpleasant interrogation techniques, up to and including
EC> torture, if it is determined to be potentially useful in saving
EC> lives.

INdeed, one can't follow extremists and get anything
intelligent done.  AS always the truth, or the right course
of action falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum .


Regards,
           Richard
... Disk Failure: (C)old boot; (W)arm boot; (S)teel-toed boot.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+