Let's Ne Honest Now!

[Tim Gratz]

Since he is dead and would be my favorite as a CIA conspirator if one existed, let's pick on E Howard Hunt.

You are the director of the SS. You have discovered the existence of a plot against JFK and know that Hunt is involved. You also know it might not be possible to stop the plot unless you know the planned site for the ambush.

Would you authorize the use of hostile interrogation on Hunt to make him reveal his co-conspirators and the situs? Objective to sabe JFK's life.

Now let us assume that JFK is assassinated and only afterward is the role of Hunt discovered. Now, would you authorize hostile interrogation solely to identify the other conspirators and bring them to justice?

I say the answer to the first question is a no-brainer provided there are limits on the extent of the hostile interrogation.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

Since he is dead and would be my favorite as a CIA conspirator if one exited, let's pick on E Howard Hunt.

You are the director of the SS. You have discovered the existence of a plot against JFK and know that Hunt is involved. You also know it might not be possible to stop the plot unless you know the planned site for the ambush.

Would you authorize the use of hostile interrogation on Hunt to make him reveal his co-conspirators and the situs? Objective to sabe JFK's life.

Now let us assume that JFK is assassinated and only afterward is the role of Hunt discovered. Now, would you authorize hostile interrogation solely to identify the other conspirators and bring them to justice?

I say the answer to the first question is a no-brainer provided there are limits on the extent of the hostile interrogation.

Are we talking phone books on the soles of the feet and head, hoses, electricity, well directed punches, sleep deprivation, sodium pentathol, or harsh language?

[Tim Gratz]

As Rudy Guiliani said, "If sleep deprivation is torture, I am being tortured by the presidential campaign!"

[Tim Gratz]

Sleep deprivation while being forced to listen to Neil Sedaka records? Aye, that's it!

Edited December 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Terry Adams]

" provided there are limits on the extent of the hostile interrogation. " (Tim Gratz)

I don't think that the definition of "hostile interrogation" (whatever that is) should even be considered when you "know" that there is a plot and you "know" Hunt has the information that you want. I think the mode of interrogation would be "whatever it takes" There are times and circumstances that have to take precedence over decorum. When the life of the president of the United States is at stake, one does what one must to retrieve the answers to the questions. Also, after the fact, unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. we don't want to know), the same rules should apply.

Terry

[Tim Gratz]

Terry, that is indeed an honest reply, that when the life of the POTUS is at stake "all bets are off". I would hope most would agree with that.

I believe I would draw a distinction if the crime has already been committed and the issue is only the apprehension conviction and punishment of the guilty parties. In that case, with no human life at stake, there are not exigent circumstances that could justify a relaxation of standards.