HI Dan,

On Fri 2037-May-22 03:12, Dan Ceppa (1:138/666) wrote to Richard Webb:

 RW> DO we do research until we find the right chemical cocktail
 RW> to inject?  There are people wrongfully convicted of crimes

DC> That's been tried and it doesn't work either.  

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.  IF it isn't reliable though
there's no reason to take the moral low ground.  We have
enough of that issue with constitutional arguments over
wrongful convictions.

IOw to put it another way, if you're going to compromise
moral and ethical principles then said compromise had damned well better
get you verifiable tangible results.  OTherwise, it's not worth it.

sO what is coercive or "under duress" as I believe it's put
in legal documents.

TO the child I referenced who's given the drama presentation with the dolls
as the psychologist says "did daddy do this"
over and over that interrogation technique is coercive.  THe child will
finally say what it thinks you want to hear.
Until he/she says that yes daddy did that it won't stop.  IT never ends.

TO the young man of little intelligence detained in the
basement of the police station just the implied threat of
violence and the badgering is coercive.  TO another man he
can withstand the badgering and implied threats, but as soon as you start
with waterboarding ...

THen there's the stoci individual that will stay the course
even to the point of losing body parts.

NO easy answers here, and a dialogue that should be engaged
in by average folks and not just in the halls of academia
where constitutional scholars pore over law books.  WHere
are the lines in the dirt?


Regards,
           Richard
... Man made Booze. God made Grass. Who do you trust?
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+