Howard Brazee wrote: > David Silberstein wrote: > > > Which brings me back to my other notion, that the interrogation was > > "scripted"; questions would be asked, and as long as the answers > > were true, the interrogators *would not press for other (less > > evasive) answers*. Which in turn strongly suggests that the > > interrogators were utterly incompetent, or completely corrupt, or > > both, but more probably the latter than the former. > > There are different ways to be corrupt. They might be interested in > going through the motions, in getting the Orb to record the > transaction, or had other interests that could be served by this > scripted interrogation - for wide varieties of reasons. Corruption > may be "doing what an empress or goddess wanted". It might be > "keeping the powers that be happy", or simply "saving us from having > a situation that would be bad for our people". I'd bet that the rules of evidence for interrogation under the Orb are strict. If the interrogator was allowed much latitude, then no one would submit to it, and many more wars might be fought to gain control of the Orb or destroy it. This would be Not Good For The Empire. Casey