Is it a stretch to guess that a captured military person may have been wounded?

Makes sense to me. And to find their uniforms in a bag in a hospital makes sense if they were being treated for wounds.

Is it reasonable to expect that the most effective tortures which could be done with hospital equipment would involve open wounds and bleeding?

Doubt it. This is the most telling, to me, about this story. The really effective means of torture don't involve bleeding.

These stories always surface. I can tell you this. If I captured an Iraqi soldier in my destroyed neighborhood, he might have a hard time of it on the way to the collection point. Very hard.

By the way. I worked with a retired Army sergeant who was on the banks of the Yalu River when the Chinese crossed in the Korean War. He said there were more of them than could be shot, and the UN retreat was not that, but a rout, a running, swirling mass of people, both UN and Chinese. Occasionally a pocket of UN or Chinese troops would be surrounded, and there was nothing for either side to do with them. No way to get them to the back lines, no way to let them go. Both sides took 'em behind a tree and shot 'em.

The key there is "both sides". What we read about are the other sides brutalities.

In Vietnam a captured VC or North Vietnamese invariably suffered and then died. The absolutely unimaginable treatment of US POWs is well known.

In Afghanistan hundreds of captured people under US protection died.

Another reason to AVOID wars, never CHOOSE war when there are other options. Not only are the captured people victims, the people who conduct the torture are victims. War is immoral insanity, NEVER to be CHOSEN when there are other means available. People who CHOOSE war are cruel beyond belief.

Carl Jung - "The center of all iniquity is 5 miles behind enemy lines."

Not. In war, anything which can be done by people with two arms, two legs and a mind IS done. By both sides.

Arf