[CMichael]

From Scott the moderator

>>This thread is not firearms related; the article that the discussion is based on in not credible (i.e. gives no sources). Further the topic has wandered from “is or is not torture happening to US captives?” to “is torture justified?” All this is bad for THR. Thread closed.<<

Threads don't need to be firearms related in this category. Only General Discussion says that threads must be firearms related.

No one was insulting one another. I think moderators shouldn't be so quick on the trigger and let people have a discussion without interfering.

In any case I just wanted to add that we are in an intelligence war. How do you suggest that we learn invaluable intelligence that may keep a terrorist attack from happening if the US can't aggresively interrogate terrorists they capture?

[SkunkApe]

I found the thread informative and thought-provoking. I thought the debate was healthy. The discussion was certainly related to the original post. Based on the number of posts, it was one of the more polular threads here a THR. I'm sorry you felt the need to close it.

[Don Gwinn]

Y'know, email addresses and PM accounts would be better ways to address any disagreement you might have with a moderator's decision. Threads like this are commonly referred to as "calling-out" threads and they rarely end well despite any good intentions the original poster might have in starting the thread.

[SkunkApe]

Point taken, Don Gwinn. I'll use that method in the future. Thanks.

[Blackhawk]

How do you suggest that we learn invaluable intelligence that may keep a terrorist attack from happening if the US can't aggresively interrogate terrorists they capture? I knew there must be a question in that diatribe somewhere!

You assume captured terrorists know something valuable. "Need to know" has been the watchword for secrets since abou the time of the first ambush however millenia ago.

We have other ways of getting and vetting intelligence than the ways of the despicable even though we sometimes lower ourselves to that level.

[Preacherman]

I think that this thread isn't going to resolve the issue, any more than the original one did. As Scott pointed out, the original thread's title included the word "allegedly", which is crucial to the point of the thread. The news report did not quote first-hand sources directly, and provided no verifiable evidence. I think it led to a useful discussion on the morality of the issue, but it was getting out of hand, and I'm not going to second-guess another moderator who decides that things are getting counter-productive.

I think that if anyone has views on whether or not a thread should/should not have been closed, it's best to raise them directly with the moderator concerned, via PM or e-mail. This avoids the potential for public controversy. We all want The High Road to be precisely what its name implies - a forum where the highest of values, expression and freedoms apply. Let's all work for the positive, rather than moan about the perceived negative!

I'm closing this thread down, so as to leave things where they stand. If anyone wants to discuss it further, PM or e-mail Scott for a reply.