On May 21, 9:52*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

I read your dissertation and a lot of it works for me. That is when it
comes to dealing with UEC's.
However, where does torture come in? You well know, that you can get
ANYBODY to confess to ANYTHING.
So what is the value of that torture? A sadistic outlet?

The original popular reason for torture was confession. During the Middle
Ages, many were convicted of crimes or heresy that involved the death
penalty. But unless they admitted their guilt, their souls were doomed to
Hell. Therefore the Church instituted torture as a method of salvation for
the doomed. By removing one's entrails, the torturer was actually doing the
recipient a favor.

In the case of UECs, we don't want a confession - we want information.

* Where is the bomb?
* What are the account numbers?
* Where are the ammunition stores?
* Who is the contact?
* Who was at the meeting?
* Where and when was the plot developed?

and so on. The answers to these questions are easy enough to check.

Or worse. And by that I mean torturing somebody so they will spit out
the support for a war which was started under false pretences. IOW, if
you don't have the reasons to wage war, torture somebody to say
something that will justify your phoney reason?
Where is the legal, moral justification for THAT reason to torture?

There is none, and coercive techniques were not undertaken with that in
mind.

....he says with certainty...