On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?

I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.

Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Aw Bruce,

A certain skepticism is called for these days.

We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).

Recognize the P word when it pops up?

Propaganda...

Myself, I look for the adverbs.

No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?

It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?

Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)