Room 101.

This is coolbert:

"'The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world,' It 'varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal.'" - - Orwell - - 1984.

"'In this type of war [counter-terrorism], the single best form of intelligence will be the hostile interrogation' - - Shlomo Gazit - - AMAN."

Here, from 2003, are two items from the Atlantic magazine. Dealing with the subject of torture. Euphemistically [?] referred to as "coercive measures".

"Mark Bowden – The Dark Art of Interrogation"

The article itself.

"The Truth About Torture"

An interview with the author - - Mark Bowden.

Again - - material from 2003 - - but NOT dated! If anything - - as germane now as it was in the days immediately in the aftermath of 9/11. AND ALWAYS WILL BE TOO?

"Coercive methods" as opposed to torture. This is the question? Torture has been defined [?] in the commonly accepted sense and legal too [?] as pain inflicted that can cause PERMANENT LASTING INJURY! Burning with a red-hot iron, pulling out the finger nails or teeth, crushing the private parts in a vice, etc.

"Coercive methods" of themselves do not cause permanent injury? Left standing for days on end, isolation, being subjected to extremes of heat or cold, forced sleeplessness, etc., do not leave PERMANENT LASTING INJURY?

This is the first question that needs to be answered, the definition itself of "torture"?

Secondly, are the Al Qaeda unlawful combatants captured and subject to hostile interrogation entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention?

Traditionally, and legally too, combatants not wearing a uniform or badge of rank identifiable at a distance, not carrying their weapons openly, and not following the laws of land warfare have NOT been considered legal and lawful combatants. In modern parlance, such persons are TERRORISTS TO WHICH THE ORDINARY LEGAL SAFEGUARDS DO NOT APPLY!

My own perception is that those in authority, when they make decisions, whatever that decision maybe, to torture of not to torture or apply the "methods", are in the habit of erring on the side of they perceive as safety, i.e., better to do this hostile interrogation, legal questions be damned, and let future generation judge as they will!

coolbert.