On May 25, 10:15 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On May 24 2013 9:57 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:38:22 -0500, "Mossingen" <
jhanki...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >"ChrisRobin" wrote in messagenews:skb37ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
Are you _really_ naive enough to think that torture will produce
useful information _in a timely fashion_
The truth is that everyone breaks under torture but the other truth is
that they take a long time to break and the "information" one gets out
of it is largely gibberish. If they break a bit quicker they may keep
their wits together well enough to lie.
The scenario so often used by torture justifiers is some extremely
awful thing is going to happen and you need the information _quickly_
like the location of a bomb in Grand Central or something.
If that is the case, as it has almost never been, you do what you have
to do and stand trial for it. There is no need for it to be legal or
permitted by policy. If you wind up in Leavenworth, you still did the
right thing.
My choice would be "ask two, no answer? shoot one." It worked quicker
than anything else our South Vietnamese allies ever did in this
direction and they did a lot of things.
--
Will in New Haven