~> Indeed it has.  I keep coming back to just that point.  IF
~> we can prove that a technique gets us verifiable accurate
~> results, then with "enemy combatants" geneva conventions be
~> damned, let's rock 'n roll. 

It is a matter of degrees and proportionality.  Even the act of arresting
and handcuffing a terrorists will bring some degree of discomfort. 
Detaining them means additional pain and suffering.  Same with making them
eat prison food, frowning at them, yelling at them, and so on.  As the
interrogation methods get more extreme, the justification for them has to
be more compelling.  That is why the "enhanced interrogation" methods were
used only after a lot of review of the potential value versus the level of
discomfort they caused.  And the nutcases always ignore all the other
techniques and rant endlessly about one interrogation technique that was
used on a grand total of THREE terrorists in late 2002 and early 2003.  It
got results, and it was found to have caused no prolonged pain or suffering
by the medical professionals that monitored it.

Fortunately Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are not following the nutcase
line.  They both feel that a president must have the ability to order
unpleasant interrogation techniques, up to and including torture, if it is
determined to be potentially useful in saving lives.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a