Well I don't condone torture, especially what this administration has done. But let me point out that the incident created a scenario where two executives of state were put in a position of having to determine if the incident was designed to provoke a response where a second incident would occur?
Similar to a bombing where a second bomb goes off to get gawkers and police officials, designed to get the crowd that assembles as a consequence of the first act, these people needed to know if that was the design behind this incident?
It is one thing to create a scenario to rush a president off the stage, but to where?
If that contingency plan was compromised then there was a danger. Not only for the two executives being rushed away from a minor incident and into a more nefarious one?
You can bet on the jack booted thugs to act first and ask questions later.
The initial report of the guy being heard beaten after immediately being removed after the incident is standard operating procedue. I imagine he needed to convince those guys prior to leaving that BLDG that he was indeed acting alone.
Again, that was one of the dumbest acts I have ever witnessed and screwing with that crowd, Shin Bet, Secret Service, or any other state security team is gonna prompt a session of answer the questions.....
There is a distinction here and a critical one, the beating did not exceed the window of actionable intelligence and the time decay of threat.
I don't find the result unusual or critical and if I had been charged with protection would have done the same to protect my charge and go home myself after work.
The reporter was a fool, a damn fool, and damn lucky a journalist tackled him first.
There was an immediate window to determine if there was a larger threat and that immediate act a diversion, the security people were correct in the protocol and the treatment was confined to that window of threat...
That's what you get when you screw with these folks.